Lola at the Coffee House

I'm so sorry that y'all have to suffer these onerous burdens, Osso. I see now that they are so much worse than what the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been put through by, who was it again [it escapes me] that inflicted immeasurable sorrow and suffering, not to mention DEATH, upon millions and millions of innocents.



Again, my apologies. Shall we rename it Cafe Depleted Uranium or Wassau's Shock and Awe? How about we stick a chalkboard on a wall to tick off the numbers slaughtered? Or maybe Wassau could put the daily count on the top of your lattes you remember, those super fancy ones that FF likes to flaunt. Do you think she's going to order a bunch to be sent over to the Iraqis or Afghans?

Have you ever wondered, Osso, why the US fails to keep a count of the souls it murders considering that it invades all these myriad countries with the express purpose of saving the oppressed to be found within said country?



That is definitely not what your fellow restaurant goers want to hear, Osso.

I'm not arguing wit ya. Of course, how he would know exactly where the incoming trajectory points were is debatable (there was something said about three points). People are working out their own issues in going after him about this.

On the other hand, I've been perplexed by the guy I read in the Guardian, the hyperbolic Scott Murray (whom I still like but he is near nutso) being, ah, blown away by the young man of the day before being penalized for taking too much time after being warned. The young man reacted well and wisely, as it happened.
NYer's John Cassidy on that matter: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/


Meantime, I'm listening to Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony.
Feels right for this early afternoon. Maybe too pacific, but we need some pacificness.

Plump Bump

That says it all, Frank.

There are two things in play here:

One…is the drop…and two is the signing of the card.

The error in the drop would NEVER incur a disqualification. The error in the drop would involve a two stroke penalty, which Tiger recognized and acknowledged as correct.

Tiger had several options on the drop: He could replay the shot from where he hit it originally (one stroke penalty); he could move to the “drop area” and play it from there (one stroke penalty); he could keep the spot where the ball entered the hazard (from the far side in the bounce off the pin) in a line with the pin…and take that line back as far as he wanted (one stoke penalty); he could have played the ball from the hazard with no penalty.

The last option was a recipe for disaster. The ball was in rocks in water…and no golfer, pro or amateur, would have selected that option. Tiger looked over the “drop area” and determined that it was so chewed up, it was an unwise choice. The “keep ball in line with pin and where it entered the hazard” apparently was not what Tiger wanted. It was far to the left of the original hit spot…and offered a poorer line of sight to the pin. So…he chose to replay the shot from where he hit the shot that hit the pin that bounced into the hazard.

When selecting that option, the player must drop the ball as close to the original spot as possible.

Now here is where the error came in. Tiger decided that he wanted a yard or two more distance from the pin…so he dropped the ball about a yard behind the spot where he hit the original shot. Under normal circumstances, the drop would have been considered okay…and play would have proceeded. A viewer out in TV land spotted the drop…and called and said the drop had been made too far away from the original divot. The Rules committee reviewed the drop…and decided the drop had been made sufficiently close enough to the original divot…and decided no problem arose.

Unfortunately, in an interview after the round, Tiger mentioned that he had wanted an extra yard on the shot…and had intentionally dropped back a yard to two. Tiger at that point obviously still thought the drop back a few yards was okay (as it would have been if he had elected to drop per “keep ball in line with pin and where it entered the hazard.”

That comment, when called to the attention of the Rules committee, caused the Rules committee to reassess things. Since Tiger wanted the extra yards…he was, in effect, improving the lie. They reversed their earlier decision…and imposed a two-stroke penalty.

But then the question of the scorecard came into play.

The scorecard did not reflect the two stroke penalty…BUT THAT HAD NOT BEEN ASSESSED UNTIL THE NEXT DAY.

So they waived any DQ…and my opinion is they would have waived it for ANY player under those circumstances.

Any player could DQ himself. Tiger decided not to do so.

It was allowed.

THERE IS NO WAY ALL THE EXPERTS say that he should have been disqualified.


As for the young man from China...that was uncalled for. I wish he had not been penalized a stroke, but he handled himself like an adult and a gentleman. So...something was gained for him...although every golfer I've talked with say that the stroke penalty was way, way off base.

Obviously, if you can't understand that they are both golf and money experts and the latter has taken precedence since the rule change. If you are going to get that obtuse I can't see the point of you talking to anybody.

It's a very revealing incident about where we are on this magic swirlin' ship. That's the reason I mentioned it and that's why there has been such a fuss. Every sportsman in England knows the joke on the same principle.

Duuuuuhhhh. We're talking Tiger Woods here, Frank.

Why does it not surprise me that you seem to be missing that.

What did you do with that posting of yours, Frank?

I think I know what that means.

There is "slippage" in your post. You go from a "yard" to a "yard or two". Just like that as Tommy Cooper used to say.

And you say that the error would not deserve DQ and then you say the lie was improved. Suppose the "error" occurred when he was behind a tree. Two yards further back might help a great deal.

The rules have to cover all circumstances in which the ball might be.

The error did not deserve DQ

Lola had invited me to the coffee shop a couple of months ago and finally, here I am.

Sorry to see that things are in an uproar as I was looking forward to seeing dear old friends and to making new friends. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

Aw sit down and have a cup of lapsang and a cannoli. Spendi and Apisa are just discussing something really important.

I could use a nice bowl of comfort food.

Maybe some pasta with sauce and lotsa freshly grated parmesan.

I think radiatore is the answer.

ha! Sybil's got my favourite kind



got any unfilled cannoli that I can have later?

Good morning Diane

Coffee is soooo good this morning, on my second cup....

That is true. It's just that fm is too stupid to realise it and confidently expects Lola's clientele to be as stupid as he is.

I can tell you something fm. If I pick up on a subject it will be important.

Sport is like religion. If the money men get their hands on it it will cease to exist and then what will we do?

I remember a scene in Ecstasy Girls where one of the studs held up a video cassette and said "the most important thing in the world". Or something similar. Which echoed a scene in a western I saw where a cranky looking guy with a very early camera took a picture from under a black cloak of the cast which was playing "heading out west" (which is where the film was made) and with the light provided by a little explosion of some up-to-date chemicals. I think Gregory Peck was in it. And a lot of other stars.

fm has had a good run knocking religion without explaining how we do without it. It's his currach that's important and you dare put one foot in it and where will you be?

Under water is where.

And I was reading a book about American history and a professor said that the Civil War was where the madness to be photographed started. And that is the sub-text of big-time marathon races. It's not the running--stupid.

It's not the golf--it's being on TV.

I was on tv as a child, Hallmark commercials, and it's not all so wonderful. It was either nepotism or my father starting the commercial tv department at a then major agency and doing a twofor. One of these days I should show a photo. I think a great many of spendi posts are made of misplaced resentment. Or, better, acting in words as if in misplaced resentment. Spoof resentment is fairly annoying.

This is not an "uproar" Diane. This is what you get in a reasonably bohemian coffee shop.

Why did Jane Austen choose "Fanny Price" for the name of her most confessional heroine?

That's a possible "uproar".

Thanks Sybil

this looks divine




I think Set will want some of this for breakfast.

Thank the powers above that nobody ever put that in front of me for breakfast, dinner or tea.