Thank you for proving my point. Well done!![]()
Not interested in discussing this at all, then? Ah well. I was looking for a detailed explanation for why I was wrong. Guess I'll have to settle for another tantrum instead.
OK, at least you have a sense of humorAnd yes, you damn snooker players know how to cue a ball, no argument there. I played snooker once, once !!
AS far as Trump goes.... when they run a candidate as bad, as corrupt and unlikeable as Hillary, things are not going to end well. We can't keep doing the same thing over and over with career politicians, who are now all millionaires, and expect different results. Trump. love him or hate him, things are going to change :grin-square:
Fair enough. Had Hilary won, I'd probably be saying something along the lines of, "when you run a candidate as wholly unsuited to this job as Trump clearly is, this is what you get." So I didn't see her as a great candidate either (better than Trump, mind). We have an interesting four years ahead, for sure.
So... anybody want to tell me why I'm wrong about Keith McCready (hopefully without calling me a troll

The way I see it is he was a decent level pro, supposedly a good gambler. Poor fundamentals but ones that worked for him. Took on a lot of shots. Was capable of hitting a high gear, but had some dog in him and was prone to miss easy shots under pressure. Hell, that last sentence could describe SVB, only SVB has a higher gear, better fundamentals and breaks like god... yet still can't get it done in these conditions against the Euros. Why would Keith do any better?