Atheists... Your life is pointless

<lag>

Naw, Frank, you're obviously the one with anger management problems. But i know you make the big Catholic sacrifice--Saint Frank. You see, i've already used that bullshit "he's angry" ploy against you. See how that works? Anybody can use that childish trick--but it doesn't work.

As usual, you trot that out when you don't have an answer for criticism. I charge you with sneering at people, and employing snide remarks to insult anyone who challenges the gospel according to Saint Frank. Having no answer to that, you trot out that pathetic, shop-worn attempt to suggest that i'm angry. I understand, Saint Frank--with your paltry rhetorical skills, and lack of logic, it's the best you can do.

Glad to see you are following this, Spade.

Almost as much fun as watching Tiger and Ricky go at it, right! I hope they get that final round in this afternoon.

Thanks Frank...

What is the deal with suspended rounds? I just starting paying real attention this year...They suspend it until they think the weather will be better then post the tee times? Then they pick up right where they were? Same holes (starting on the back/front nine) as earlier? Also, do the leaders tee off last, in any round, specifically last round? Or is it always random?

They pick it up from where they were last. In rain delays (usually with lightening) they actually mark the position of the balls in play...and play them from there. (not really sure if that provision holds for rounds that carry over to another day, but the round will NOT start over.) I think you can finish out a hole after the horn sounds...but you cannot start a new hole after the horn...under penalty.

OK, thanks...So when the horn sounds can you elect to pick your ball up if you would like too, and mark it?

Also...I am not sure if you seen this, because I did edit it...

Do the leaders tee off last, all rounds, specifically the last one so everyone can watch? Or is it always random?

I asked the first part because I think I remember it being random but I am n0t sure that I am correct...

I think the first one would have to be...?

Just checking in to see if anyone had found any evidence of anything supernatural, like a god or a heaven or something. No? OK. I'll check back later.

You'd better mark it first and pick it up after the mark...or there is a severe penalty.



Random according to draw for the first two rounds. After the cut, by score with the highest cut score teeing off first...and lowest cut score teeing off last.

Thanks Frank! That did help me a lot because as I said I a new to it...and did forget all about the cut...

OK...the second part...I am not sure if I am saying the same thing or not just using incorrect terminology...

The overall leader (and I think I know how it works for ties) on the start of the third round would tee off the day as the very first person to tee off on the day? Or would the overall leader get to tee off last so they can see what others before they tee off have done? Or is it just the exact opposite because of that?

Upon rereading it, I think I understand...but please just clarify it a bit more for me if you would not mind...just so I know I am sure, and since it is already up there...

Yeah, it actually does, Setanta. And it works against you especially…since your have so little self-control.


Not at all…but I try to go easy on you. After all, I realize you actually have to live that life you are living…with all the paranoia, anger and hatred.

I do enjoy reading your rationalizations for your nastiness, though, Setanta. Reading that stuff you try to sell almost always brings a smile to my face…and a slight shaking of my head. Here are a couple of those emoticons you love so much!

Go to PM...this golf talk is probably intruding on Setanta's brooding.

OK...No problem mate...

I think I will personally wait until your buddy scientists use their telescope to look all the way back into time, since there is still a 3% window...

How can someone look all the way back into time using a scope, if the universe is forever going?

Being that a scope is a 3 dimensional object, does it somehow have 4th dimensional qualities?

If what you have said before about those scientists is true...Then there is 2 options with one alternative...and it can be no other way...

Option number 1, they are attempting to validate that there is no 4th dimension, and either will or will not...

Option number 2, what we think is the 4th dimension is an actual characteristic of the 3rd dimension and is not its own dimension...

One alternative out...They use this scope or anything else to look into the future since it is forever going, and prove and validate what the future holds with facts, that are not previously known...and these predictions always come true...

Yes, I know that there is time, but it is possible that man created this 4th dimension within the confines of the 3rd dimension itself, and it is real to us since it applies to the 3rd in which we live in...but it isn't real...

Or the only way to the 4th dimension is through a God that they refuse to try to validate by looking into the past, instead of the future...and either know this and do not want to look...or do not know this...and think they are looking...Or do not know this...and do not want to look...and are not looking...though they may "think" they are...

No Frank, it doesn't work. You just wish it did. Of course, you also bring it up when you can't handle the criticism, which is almost always.

Interesting how you demand absolute, incontrovertible proof from science of everything that has ever happened, but excuse yourself from providing even the smallest bit of evidence for your god.

Scientists can see into "time" because of relatvistic effects. So, for eexample, there is a star known as Antares (it means "not Mars" in Greek--it's a red star, and the ancient Greeks named it Antares because many people confused it with the planet Mars, the "red planet"). Antares is ten thousand light years away. Light moves at a constant speed, 186,212 mile per second. If, tomorrow, the star Antares were to "go nova," if it exploded, we would be seeing an event which took place ten thousand years ago, because that's how long it would take the light to get here. Scientists are able to look at other events even older because of the amount of time it takes light to reach the earth.

Who said that I was doing any of that? You? Is there proof for this, so that you can prove this for me? Or is it because you believe this is true? Do you need more proof?

Like I have said, if what you are saying that they are doing is true...They are the ones who are looking for it, and I am not the one who is looking for it, because I believe what I have just said and do not need it to survive scrutiny...

If what you are saying about me, or them is true, then validate that I am wrong for me to see it...so I stop believing, and validate it for them in another way other than my beliefs so that they can see that they may be incorrect because you can validate it and make their objective survive scrutiny...and validate it is not because they are doing those actions because they believe them, validate you have said what you have about them and I because you do not believe it...and reject it...and validate I have said what I have because you can prove that my belief is incorrect...and their "proof" is "proof"

If you can...

Watch a rat, FB, foraging in a sewer. What's the difference between us and the rat without God? Material efficiency eh? Pretentiousness?

What are we without the sacred?

You really are off your head. Despite frequent disagreements Frank has never sneered at me nor called me a bitch. It's possible to disagree with Frank and remain civil.

You're the one who resorts to name calling at the drop of a hat, not only that you go out of your way to be as offensive as possible. Calling the Dalai Llama a pig and referring to Jesus as 'your gay boy,' are designed to cause maximum offence.

None of this would matter if you had anything about you, if your posts could raise a smile, or even challenge someone's preconceptions there could be an argument for being so obnoxious. You've failed in both respects, because you're so insufferably dull.

Here's a hint, calling a sandwich a 'sammich' isn't funny, it's just rather sad.