Yeah, welcome back man. We missed you so much !!!!!!!
Does a touch of outside...
- Thread starter (((Satori)))
- Start date
Yeah, welcome back man. We missed you so much !!!!!!!
You are so much like another member that can put words into someone else's mouth or make false implications.
Is it a reading comprehension issue or an arrogant belief that you can read the minds of others?
I did NOT say that Jack Nicklaus could not nor did not play all of the shots.
But if you know anything about him, you would know that he chose to predominantly play a high fade when ever the situation would allow it & especially on tee shots for par 4s & 5s.
He did so for a few reasons.
He did not only play that high fade when it was the shot that was called for. If it was not prohibited he played the high fade.
Naturally if that was not allowable he would hit another shot like a draw.
Even when CJ said to hit every shot with TOI, he did not mean that literally, but from his perspective he did, because he starts from that position & then pivots to center or beyond for outside english, when the shot called for it or he wanted to do so
Did you mean to put that in Green Text.
That is generally the color that denotes sarcasm.
Banks
Banned
Thanks, Dub! May be heading out that way in a couple of months.
The overwhelming support on this thread page alone is enough to make one cry.
I have no problem with that if you feel there is something that should be discussed privately. Just keep in mind while civil I will generally tell it like it is (no matter how hard it may be to hear) so if you aren't interested in hearing the truth...
I'm not obsessed with either.
Look at the thread subject & how it evolved & TOI was a part of the subject matter when you quoted my inferred 'analogy'.
It is more like YOU that is obsessed with it & CJ in a negative manner & make false assumptions then post about your false assumptions.
Also, whenever you are shown to be wrong about something you go off topic with a 'come back' in a trolling manner.
I'd guess you'll have another one coming at me soon, but I could be wrong.
Many on AZB want to dish it out but don't want it back & don't handle it well when it comes back at them. Then some of those want to call ME passive aggressive when it is almost always them that initiate the aggression.
Last edited:
This is absolutely right.
Well I can see where it would be futile since you do not have an open mind & arrogantly have declared yourself the sole judge of the truth.
I think your definition of 'civil' needs some work. Veiled insults are not in the spirit of civility.
I'll just say that your earlier post is fraught with distortions & faulty comparisons & lacks the insight of what it is to 'coach' individuals. You seem to have the same cookie cutter approach & want to lump them into that loose definition of 'most' as justification.
Either that or you completely have misunderstood what I intended to try to convey.
Let's just say that we disagree.
Banks
Banned
This coming from the person that won't listen to anybody that doesn't agree with them or isn't CJ.
How is it that nobody can understand what you're saying? Seems like a recurring problem that nobody else has on this forum.
I still wonder if you even play.
Edit: You can't play, can't communicate and took 50 years to learn a basic part of pool. You can join ps98734598754 in the pile, buh-bye.
You have a very limited grasp of reality except for the trolling part. I'm sure more is on it's way.
Peace Noob !!!!!!!!
The only way I think that could happen is if it came from the player himself or if a very knowledgeable person would give their opinion based off of their analysis of how the cue ball acts after contact with the OB & maybe not even then on some shots.
The visual angles like when watching on television can be very deceiving & the amounts so small that is would be very unreliable just looking at the supposed tip placements.
No, when it comes to things that happen on the pool table or things we think we are doing while playing, I only state things as fact when they are actually provable fact, and state things as theory when they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence but are not yet proven, and have both the intelligence and knowledge to always know the difference. And when I just don't know, I say so, or say my guess is just that, a guess.
Your problem is that you try to argue things that you don't have a clue about, and you don't have the self awareness or intelligence or knowledge or typically some combination thereof to realize that you don't have a clue. You also have the arrogance to argue with those that even you know to be many times more intelligent and more educated on a topic than you. Like I said before, you would argue the details of nuclear fission with a nuclear physicist. No matter that you don't have a clue about something, you are going to have the strongest possible opinion on the matter and nobody is ever going to be able to change your mind. Bet those character traits have served you real well in life.
Thanks, Dub! May be heading out that way in a couple of months.
The overwhelming support on this thread page alone is enough to make one cry.
That would be cool, I'm in need of more "lessons"
Sean was up here recently, I racked a lot
at least I can do that well.