Vijay Singh more likely to cry on the golf course than average man
Vijay’s age must finally be catching up with him. Not only is he getting out-driven by Phil Mickelson, he is also becoming a grouchy old man. After Mickelson beat him by a total of four shots during the first two rounds of the FBR Open, Singh reportedly asked that Mickelson’s driver be tested.
On Monday after the tournament,still grouchy from the weekend’s events, Singh went home and yelled to his neighbors, “Keep your damn kids off of my lawn. I’m trying to take a nap.” After waking up, he walked outside, kicked a dog on the street, and started up his Cadillac to get to the early-bird special at the local diner. Later in the week, he contacted Hootie Johnson to ask if he could tee off at 5:30 each morning during the Masters because he is beginning to get sleepy around 1:00 in the afternoon, and he wants to make sure he can keep up with the young “whipper-snappers.”
Vijay Singh has never been my favorite player, and this puts him even lower on the list. If he had beaten Mickelson the first two rounds, he never would have taken the time to complain. Vijay is too good to question another player’s driver or another player’s spikes (coincidence that Mickelson was the source of the complaint both times?); if there was a legitimate violation that was hurting his chances of winning, that’s one thing, but being outdriven by an average of six yards on Thursday and fifteen yards on Sunday is not what made him lose.
Perhaps his next complaint will make history as the first that a player ever makes against his own equipment, with his Never Compromise putter, or whatever is in his bag at this point, becoming the target. At his age, all it will take for him to explode is for some intern in tournament hospitality to serve him a cold bowl of oatmeal-then everyone better watch out.
|« Refreshing statistics from the Nissan Open||Rule 26-1: My own ignorance has been my worst enemy »|
He was back in top 10 again, in pebble beach.
Also as far as spikes are concern, Vijay was right, Phil was wearing the shoes that he should not have...
The problem is you guys will never accept the fact that Phil was wrong, simply becuase u hate VIJAY.
And he's an idiot.
However, the majority of the press who cover the sport are white ( and love Phil!)
Mr. Hux, you have no shame and your racist comments will follow you for generations!
May God forgive you....because we won't!
Let me guess, Thadeus: you're black.
Yes, John, Vijay was caught cheating.
Secondly, it's liberals/secularists who are trying to control people's lives (and they're doing a good job of it); who do you think is the impetus behind virtually every new, excessive law that's made? Wake up.
I've also noticed you have a tendency to be somewhat racist and sexist, so join the bigotry club.
I have a hard time believing that any of the information in this paragraph is true. So, assuming that it was all tongue-in-cheek, I move on to the rant against Vijay. If he wants to be the best, and someone is using illegal equipment, he should check it. If he has a hissy fit when someone calls him one, then we can rant and rage.
That's interesting, because I hate secularism. It's too bad that you don't know what side your bread is buttered on.
What you mean is, you're all for religion and the unification of church and state?
History has taught us that this doesn't work well, that religion causes most if not all wars, and that it is more trouble than it is worth.
Look at the recent Muslim outcry at the Danish for merely the publication of a few cartoons. Religious people are generally holier-than-thou hypocrites - self-righteous idiots who want everyone to follow their ridiculous views and who typically cause a large stir when something disagreeable happens. Then they go and blatantly break the rules of their own religion. Then it's time for breakfast.
And I haven't forgotten some of your comments, such as: 'You stated that I don't think women should play golf. I don't even think they should be allowed on a golf blog.'
Also, the one about immigration of Asians and Africans to the Western world.
By the way, I still don't see what bread has to do with all this.
Quite frankly, you're very ignorant. While I know I can't disabuse you of your fallacious ideas, I will debunk some of what you said for the open-minded who may read this thread.
Firstly, religion has not caused all or even most of the wars, although provincial minds can easily be convinced to parrot such nonsense. Virtually all wars were the result of greed and/or the lust for power. Julius Caesar, Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Attila, the Vikings, Shaka Zulu, the Spartans, the Persians, Napoleon, Hitler and countless others all launched military campaigns for personal and national glory. Moreover, THE most murderous force of the twentieth century was Communism, an atheistic ideology. Not only did its adherents do a splendid job of initiating conflicts for the purposes of spreading their vile, Godless, poisonous ideas, but they also murdered 100 MILLION people directly during the last century. By the way, the Catholic Church condemned Communism and Socialism early on, and pronouncements to this effect can be easily found in encyclicals and other Church documents.
Secondly, you can impugn the Moslems if you wish, for I have no love for them. However, to seek to discredit all religion by pointing to what is nothing but a vile heresy is silly and can be refuted easily. Why, it's much like trying to discredit all philosophy by pointing to that which underpins Naziism. It's another example of a failure to think analytically; the notion that all religion is the same is as stupid as the idea that all ideology is the same. Would you equate Naziism with liberalism? Would you equate Communism with Capitalism? Obviously, as with everything else, some religions are better and others are worse.
Lastly, what history has taught those who are discerning and teachable is that the unification of atheism and state doesn't work too well. Just remember what the fruits of Communism have been. Furthermore, if you want to know what I advocate, it's merely what our founding fathers intended, which, sadly, you have been deceived about.
Oh, and I know all about the early Christian communal communities in 19th century America, since I've studied the matter. However, you know as well as I do what communism means nowadays; it was popularized by Marx and Engels, and their definition became the prevailing one. So don't spit down my back and tell me it's raining.
Furthermore, if you had actually taken the time to study the Christian communes that existed, you'd know that they were voluntary constructs. No church ever compelled anyone to live a "communist" lifestyle. No, it took unbelievers to do that. Of course, though, they also perverted the philosophy to the nth degree.
Oh, I should also add that all credible historians agree that Jesus existed, so you're descending into X-Files territory on that one. Do you ever hear Twilight Zone music playing?
Lastly, you say that there's no need of religion, but if there's no God then there's no need of you. Of course, I'm sure you won't understand my allusion.
David, you're a philosophical neophyte. You're so far out of your depth that it's not even funny.
Now, go eat some plum pudding, drink a cup of tea, and retire for the night before you embarrass yourself further.
Also, you're a sloppy thinker, and even this assessment may be too generous, as it presupposes that you're some kind of thinker. The problem is that you're awash in relativism, and until you address this matter, you'll never be anything but mediocre and a creature of your age.
I am not a philosopher, and do not pretend to be. I plan to study science or mathematics at university - it's the humanities students that tend to be philosophical thinkers. I'm a logical thinker, which if why I often talk more sense than you, and why I don't say ridiculous things like this:
>> Lastly, you say that there's no need of religion, but if there's no God then there's no need of you. Of course, I'm sure you won't understand my allusion.
(I mean, what in the hell does that mean? There are no gods; we know enough about science now to abolish the idea of religion.)
You also didn't reply to my assertion that the Genesis story is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Oh, and the adjective 'credible' in the term 'credible historians' says nothing about the quality of his knowledge. 'Credible historians,' just like you, are closed-minded puppets who want to stay away from controversial views. I bet there are many brilliant historians (who probably wouldn't be considered 'credible' in your eyes) who believe Jesus never existed - there really is no other evidence for Jesus other than the bible (you know, that supposedly most-sacred book of all time that just so happens to become 'discredible,' i.e. nonsensical, on the first page). There is literally NO evidence for a god of any kind - but do we have evidence for The Big Bang? Yes; more than you'll ever know.
Also, a British historian called David Irving, who you again would consider 'discredible' has just been sent to jail in Austria for denying the Holocaust. He wrote a book explaining his reasoning, and may well be right. He knows more about the subject than you, but has been imprisoned merely for an opinion (based on evidence - something that you do not need for belief), and I'm sure you're fine with that.
And I guessed you were referring to Marxism, but if I'm a sloppy thinker, then you're a sloppy writer in that you can't properly specify what you mean.
You also hate admit to being wrong. I admitted that I was wrong, but you cannot do that. I haven't been humiliated - I have held my own against a guy who obviously knows quite a lot of what he's talking about (or at least pretends to very well indeed).
I'm not sure of your level of education or what subjects you're involved in, but you're clearly a good thinker, and I think it was unreasonable of you to call me a 'sloppy thinker' (often just because I reasonably disagreed with you). I never claimed to be a philosopher, but you're probably not a philosopher either.
First of all, since you seem to be trying to be reasonable, I'll respond in kind. I just reacted the way I did because I find the kind of closed-mindedness you exhibited to be very trying.
"Lastly, you say that there's no need of religion, but if there's no God then there's no need of you. Of course, I'm sure you won't understand my allusion."
As I said, you wouldn't understand the allusion. I was being purposely cryptic, and I had my reasons for being so. But I'll explain it to you.
If there's no God, we are nothing but a few pounds of chemicals and water. Moreover, a corollary of this is that there is no right or wrong. After all, if there's nothing above man that is greater than him and that determines what right and wrong are - in other words, if it does not exist apart from man as part of objective reality -- how can we say that something is truly right or wrong? For, if this is the case, it is synonymous with opinion. And if this is the so, then the terms "morality" and "right and wrong" have lost their raison d'etre. They then simply become redundancies that only serve to create confusion about semantics.
Put differetly, a yardstick cannot be its own yardstick. Every time you judge something you are applying some standard, and it follows that the standard has to be greater than what is being judged. In other words, you can judge things as good or bad, but how can you know which is which? The bad would most likely claim that it's good; why, even Hitler would have said he was doing good. So, how can you know? There is only one way: the standard you're using has to be above that which you're judging: the good and bad.
Thus, it's ridiculous to think that man can be his own yardstick. We may fancy that we're valuable in the scheme of things, but that could just be self-delusion. We may think that we're good, but of course we'll be inclined to think that of ourselves. We may be inclined to think that man is good, but that could just be a feeling that is very logically explained within the context of evolutionary thought. We can only say that we are valuable or not, good or not, and that there is good and bad, if there's a yarstick above us -- one that is superior to us -- with which we can be measured.
What this means is that if there's no God, there's no truth, and if there's no truth, there's no right or wrong. Moreover, you are then just chemicals and water. And if this is the case, how can it be wrong to terminate your function? What's wrong with terminating the function of an organic robot? Besides, again, there is no right or wrong.
Thus, how could we say, objectively speaking, that you were important? How could we say that you mattered? Sure, you're important to yourself, and I'm sure the people in your family value you, but again, that's purely subjective. It could simply be the function of emotion and instinct: you have a will to live, you have the psychological need to feel important and valuable, and your family has an emotional attachment to you. It proves nothing. Some people have an emotional attachment to food; to others their cars are extremely important.
The bottom line is that you're only truly important if you can said to be so in an objective sense. Your life is only truly valuable if you're an ethereal creature infused with a soul and have been deemed valuable by the Creator of all. If you're just a cosmic accident and an organic robot, what value shall we place on you?
This is what I was alluding to with that esoteric statement. You can now see why I didn't elaborate -- doing this issues justice is no small task. I won't say anything else for now, as the above is enough to absorb. Besides, if you can't grasp it -- and it is a prerequisite for deeper philosophical understanding -- than forging on ahead would be fruitless.
By the way, a philosopher is exactly what I am, in part, anyway.
I'll respond to a few of the things I didn't address before. First of all, if you think that the David Irving situation would find favor with me, you don't have your finger on the pulse of the political spectrum. I'm well aware of his case and am quite upset about it. In fact, I'm thinking of writing an article on the matter (I'm a columnist).
However, if you understood today's political climate, you would know that it's people on the right (such as myself) who are fighting "hate-speech" laws. In fact, WE are the targets of them. For instance, in some western countries, Christians have been punished for criticizing homosexual behavior and Islam. I did write an article about this recently, by the way.
The fact of the matter is that hate-speech laws are the handiwork of leftist secularists (almost a redundancy), and that's why they are always used against those who espouse politically-incorrect beliefs. And what I'm telling you is a fact: the secular left promotes these laws, the Christian right fights them. I operate in Christian circles a good percentage of the time, and this is a major issue for all true believers. They talk about it, express a lot of anger, and they fight this type of tyranny.
About Jesus: once again, you've been misled about this. There ARE sources other than the Bible that speak of Jesus, and no credible historian questions the historicity of the claim that He existed.
Next, the idea that science refutes religion is incorrect. The scientists who have found faith through their endeavors are legion. In fact, some of the greatest minds have ultimately found that the conclusion that God exists is inescapable. Einstein was among them. I also will point out that people who bow down at the altar of science tend to descend into great evil. Why, in the early 1900s Germany was arguably the most scientifically advanced country in the world, yet, its people allowed the Nazis to rise to the fore. Not surprising, though, as one of your countrymen, G.K. Chesteron, once said, "The problem nowadays is that we have Christian values floating around detached from one another. Consequently, we have scientists who care only about truth but have no pity, and humanitarians who care only about pity but have no truth." Science without a firm moral foundation is like a runaway train.
David, here's another cryptic comment for you. Since I have been where you are (I truly have), I can tell you that you're in the middle phase.
I have never had any problem accepting that I'm just a big mixture of chemicals, and that I am very unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I'm essentially as important as the kitchen sink.
It is the people's desire to feel important and special that causes them to believe there is a god, 'eternal truths,' right and wrong, etc. But I know I'm not important, and I believe that our society invented 'right and wrong.' Morals are man-made, not god-given; I don't kill people because I know that those people are loved by others, and because I don't want to spend the next twenty years behind bars.
I am insignificant and so is everybody else - that's why it is important for everybody to be somewhat selfish during their life; no one will remember me, and compared to the whole universe, even our galaxy is a minute phenomenon.
I take the 'what you see is what you get' viewpoint. I have seen life for what it is. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess. I'm not a manic depressive, and I do not suffer from low self-esteem, I just take a more cold and calculated viewpoint.
I could never believe in god, because it doesn't fit in with science as I see it. Oh, and I don't think Einstein actually died a religious man, and religion was often the cause for his downfall (he wasn't perfect). And no, Charles Darwin was not a god-fearing man.
I've enjoyed this debate. Thanks. It's pretty deep stuff considering we're on a Vijay Singh blog.
Of course, I don't believe that what he was saying evolution implies is true, but he was certainly correct about it being dangerous.
You understand my point.
Thanks for the discussion. Take care.
You don't seem to know much about human psychology.
I do know, however, that humans find the notion that we'll go into a realm of paradise after death VERY comforting.
They hate the grim reality that we they be either burnt or buried, and essentially will not exist any longer. There is no conciousness, no pain.
Their molecules will join the cycle again, and they will exist no longer. It's that simple.
This is why I said you weren't a thinker. If you were, you'd understand that Christianity is necessary for the purposes of keeping the less evolved organic robots in line. Not everyone ascend to your lofty state of intellectual and moral development. :o)
Anyhow, if religion is to be followed, it should be followed because of belief in god, love for 'him,' and all that crap.
You insinuated that one of the sole purposes of religion is to keep all the dimwits well-behaved. It sounded for a moment like you were stating that you're not really religious - you just think it's good in the maintainence of a nanny state.
I HAVE thought about this a lot, and have realised we ARE just material things. Everything in the universe can (or will be in the future) be explained to some extent by science, except this weird thing you religious buffs love to call the 'soul,' and in addition 'god,' heaven and all the rest of that nonsense.
This post has 18 feedbacks awaiting moderation...