Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (672)	12/8/2000 4:23:11 PM
From: Diana	Respond to of 14610

You golfers should try FL for the next Piffer get-together: Proposed Rule Revision -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- A proposed revision to the rules of golf is being sought in South Florida which will replace the traditional call of "FORE". Once a player has hit an errant shot, he will be allowed to call "GORE" while the ball is still in flight. He can then replace the ball in the same spot and hit it again to try for a better position than the first shot. The player can do this until he is satisfied the ball is going where he has INTENDED to hit it in the first place. This will cause the time of play to be extended until such time the player can claim the hole. This revision is causing some consternation to the PGA, but proponents say it is only "fair," since only the "intended shots" should be considered. A recent test of this new rule was just played out in an exclusive club in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the first hole only took 7 days to complete. Further testing may need extra judgments to achieve the desired results

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (672)	12/8/2000 7:48:11 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

Jorj X McKie, Well, the cat is out of the bag. Pandora's box is open. The political nuclear arms have been engaged. A Constitutional crisis is just around the corner. Manual recounts for all undervotes with no guidance of what constitutes a legally casted ballot. How can the Florida Supreme Court address the easy question but leave out the tough one? What a bunch of legal weenies.... So we'll have some counties counting hanging chads, some counties counting penetrated chads, some counties counting dimpled chads and some counties counting only God knows what. So a manual recount is more accurate than a machine count, heh? Give me a break. Regards,