Since we've all had so much fun debating Jason's theories about spin transfer and tip/ball contact time, I thought I'd propose some more nonsense (IMO) for discussion.

THE DRAW SHOT MYTH DEBUNKED
Most people cannot draw the ball, therefore it must not be possible. What is commonly referred to as "draw" is actually an optical illusion caused by our expectations that a moving cueball will keep moving in the same direction.

ALL BALLS ARE GRAY
I know a player that is color-blind. He is a good player, and since he says that all of the balls are gray, it must be true.

THE 100 MPH BREAK SHOT
All this talk we've been hearing about 25-30 mph being the maximum break shot speed must be wrong. It sure seems faster to me, so it must indeed be faster.

THE HALF-BALL HIT SIDE POCKET SHOT
I don't really think we've completely covered this issue.

THE NINE BALL ON THE BREAK
The odds against this are astronomical! All those balls banging into each other in just the right way to drive the nine, from the CENTER of the rack, into a 4.5" pocket? Preposterous. I don't think we'll ever see it in our lifetimes.

SLATE
If you think about it, having a material that magically "just happens" to be exactly what we need to make our table beds out of seems pretty "lucky" doesn't it? That's what they want us to think.

Deno J. Andrews wrote...
> He [Gore] is picking the counties, and that is crazy because ALL
> counties have some problems.

How would you, and others like you, feel about ALL counties with less than say a 2% margin, in all states with less than say a 2% margin, being scrutinized very carefully before an official winner is declared? If I thought this could be done quickly enough I'd be all for it.

> So yes, by not accepting the votes as they are, and seeking to have
> votes changed (like the Buchanan votes that are "supposed" to be
> Gore votes) is a basic hurt to democracy, no matter how
> you look at it.

"Seeking to have votes changed" is wording I would disagree with. In exchange I would submit "seeking to determine the voter's actual intent" with the provision that it should be the voters themselves that declare that intent. A manual recount may allow that determination if it's done fairly and openly.

> On another note, what if 2000 or so people were to come forward in Palm
> County and say they voted for Buchanan? Would you think they were lying,
> or would you say, wow...I guess people did vote for Buchanan down there?
> Would that solve the debate?

I don't think it would solve anything. Republicans would probably think the issue was settled, but Democrats would probably assume that it was really 2000 Bush supporters. Since there would be no way to tell for sure, short of an official re-vote, nothing would change except there would be more opportunity for finger pointing.

> I don't mind a delayed vote at all. In fact, I like the hand-count idea.
> There are reps from both parties involved and I believe it will be a fair
> process.

I hope so, although it seems that it may not happen if they can't get it done by tomorrow afternoon.

> The thing that gets me is that the Libs tend to think that all those
> 19000 votes that were disqualified should somehow go to Gore.

Again, I don't really think this is true. They certainly think many of them were meant to go to Gore, but they're trying to determine this via re-counts. I haven't heard anyone suggest that any of these votes should just be arbitrarily switched to Gore.

> Count the votes and move on.

I also think this is the best solution we currently have, but I will be pissed if some serious changes aren't made to our voting and counting processes because of this fiasco. This country could end up with a President that the people didn't really want, and to me that's discraceful even if the President does a fantastic job. Once this election is over there had better be some steps taken to ensure that something like this never happens again.

> Remember, we also have an Electoral College, many of whom do
> not have to vote for the person their constituents voted for.

I don't think this has been given nearly the attention it deserves. I must admit that I was unaware of the elector's leeway in December until this election. I don't understand the reasoning for giving them this lattitude at all. As close as this election is I think the electors had damn well better vote as their constituents did. To do anything else would be unpardonable IMO.

> What do others think of letting the Electoral College in Florida decide? I
> think it is the best way to do it, since they make the final decision
> anyway.

I don't like it. It nullifies the vote of every single person in the state. Is Florida one of the states where the electors can vote their conscience? If so, you're right. They make the final decision anyway.

Deno J. Andrews wrote...
> If we "fix" their votes, there is no democracy as I have stated,
> because there WAS a vote, and whether or not their vote was
> "wrong," it was a vote nonetheless...and changing that for
> anything hurts democracy.

There's something about this attitude - that it's the vote itself, not the accuracy of the vote that's important - that's been bothering me since last week. To me, the physical act of voting is nothing more than the means by which the voters express their preference. If it fails to provide for an accurate expression, yet is allowed to stand anyway, IMO that is what can hurt Democracy.

> [...]
> Our democracy calls for a vote ON election day. That happened
> and the votes are in. As I stated already, if there were mistakes
> in the vote, too bad. The people had their chance to fix their
> mistakes, and they did not. To vote again goes against us, thus
> killing what we know of our democracy.

The same attitude re-stated, but this time warning of killing Democracy instead of just hurting it. I really fail to see how a wrong, yet timely, vote can be preferred over an accurate, yet delayed one. This attitude is one I'll probably never fully understand.

This election has been a wake-up call for Americans, and I know that we all hope that everyone does indeed wake up. I expect some serious voting reform actions the next few years, but that doesn't really help us right now. I'd like to see a national re-vote, but since I fear that it would be subject to the same sloppiness as this one displayed it would be pointless. My next choice would be complete and accurate re-counts of all close states, but I don't think this can be done without partisan finger pointing from both sides, and this could further divide us.

So what do I think should be done? I don't know, this whole thing is a mess. What I do know however, is that the anti-recount and anti-revote people should adopt different slogans than "if there were mistakes in the vote, too bad" and "whether or not the vote was wrong, it was a vote nonetheless." I don't think this attutide is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

bbentley wrote...
> Now..most carpal tunnel is characterized by
> numbness in the finger TIPS, and the pain almost
> always gets worse at night.

A quick test to see if you have CTS:

1. Locate a joint that you suspect may be inflamed. For me it was the base of my thumb.

2. Heat a knitting needle until it glows red.

3. Insert the knitting needle into the suspect joint.

4. If you can feel no difference in the pain, then you have CTS.

Hope this helps.

I recently was accused of making a sexist remark on another thread. I reflexively defended my position in ways that were probably not even necessary, as Ed eventually pointed out.

The problem is with the word "sexist." It ends in "ist." Words with this suffix are almost always associated with bad things, and cause a defensive reaction. Think about it:

Racist
Sexist
Communist
Fascist
Bigamist
Cellist
Lobbyist
Renquist

There's something about each of these words, that were they attributed most people, would cause a defensive reaction right away. All the words have in common is their suffix.

You almost never hear good words with that suffix. There's no "loveist," " fuzzybunnyist," or "peaceist."

How about, in the interest of peace, we all strive to eliminate this suffix from our daily lives. Except, that is, for the physicists, biologists, and novelists among us.

The suffix "ism" should also be banned, for the same reasons.

J Dub wrote..
> Geez, not even a decent flame war. C'mon guys, if you're going to get your
> testosterone boiling, take off the gloves and do it right. Don't expect us
> to vote for the winner.
If you want a flame war you'll have to start one yourself. Some good topics might be "Only chumps play one-pocket," and "Efren sucks because he isn't an American," and "Three-ball, the only true test of pool skill."

Since the recent troll invasion of ASP I've lost all inhibitions about plonking people, so I'd be more likely to just ignore someone than to get into a pissing contest with them. If I can't keep a disagreement up to at least a marginally adult level I just don't feel like wasting my time with it.

Ed Mercier wrote...
> Because we generally do not worry about grown men making other grown men cry under
> nearly any circumstance. So making the statement when referring to Allison is an
> off-hand reference to her sex, and the widely held opinion that women are more
> likely to cry than men are. That makes it sexist.

Okay. I see your point. I feel my fault was not, however in making a sexist remark, but rather in failing to anticipate that others may understandably interpret it as such. I'm not going to let myself become overy concerned about this type of thing or I'd become afraid to post anything besides "shoot, shoot, shoot."

If the match being discussed had indeed been between Earl and Cory Deuel, I might very well have made the same statement. In that context it would certainly have been an off-hand reference to Cory's relative youth, relative inexperience, and relative immaturity. Hmmm, so there would have been some veiled meaning in one case, and no (intended) veiled meaning in the other. Makes me wish I had a therapist to sort this out.

BTW: That last paragraph was in no way intended to defame Cory Deuel. The mentions of relative youth and relative inexperience are, I feel, fairly harmless and obvious, especially when comparing him to Earl Strickland. Immaturity is one of those unfortunate words with several meanings. In this context I was referring to a (possible) immaturity in handling the type of sharking stunts that Earl may pull in a match. The same type of immaturity that makes some young men cry because a drill sargeant yells at them. Another type of immaturity is evidenced by poor-sportsmanship, and in that area I'm pretty sure that Cory is way (better than) Earl. As is a large percentage of the population.

Ed Mercier wrote...
> So you're saying you would be just as likely to make this remark about a male player
> (maybe Buddy Hall?) as a female player (Allison)? If no, it's a sexist remark. If
> yes, you're a dope. Your choice I guess.

The conversation was about Earl vs. Allison. If those two were to match up, which one would be more likely to make an ass of themselves, use sharking tactics, argue calls, etc.?

Now wouldn't that leave the other player in the position of possibly being upset by such antics?

Wouldn't that be a horrible thing for CueTec?

If I'd said Allison might make Earl cry that would make no sense, not because Earl is a man, but because Allison would never behave that badly. Earl does behave that badly, so anyone he plays has to be extra careful to not let him get under their skin.

You can read sexist into my statement if you want, but I think I deserve more consideration than this knee-jerk reaction. It seems to me that your implication that only a "dope" would make this remark about Earl vs. another male player could also be inferred as a sexist stand.

I won't make that inference about you because I've read enough from you to feel that, while you are at times wrong, you at least seem to feel that you have a legitimate reason for your opinions. I doubt you could justify these kinds of sexist feelings to yourself, therefore I doubt that you're a sexist. It would be nice if you could give me the same consideration.

> > >NO......the best match would be Strickland and Fisher!
> >
> > Sponsored by CueTec, of course!

I guess I'm probably in the minority here, but I hate this idea, and I can't imagine why either player would want to do it.

I think it's agreed that Allison would need some type of spot, whether it was a designated breaker or whatever. Any match that included that type of adjustment is, IMO, making a pretty clear statement that Allison can't keep up with Earl playing straight up. For most people this would only be stating the obvious and the match would end up being more of a publicity stunt than an actual match.

But say Allison wins. Nothing would be proved as "everyone" would know that the win wouldn't have been possible without the adjustment. Earl would be taking a very public loss that he didn't deserve, but a very public loss nonetheless. Any comments Earl would inevitably make about losing because of the adjustment would only create more fuel for the anti-Earl people.

Now say Earl wins. So what? He's got to be expected to win, even with a break adjustment, so a win gets him nothing except the opportunity to be seen beating a very popular "girl." Allison gets nothing from a Strickland win for the same reason she gets nothing if she wins.

Also, does Cuetec really want their two name players pitted against each other? Maybe they do, but I'd be awful leery about putting Earl in the spotlight, playing against Allison, where just about every word out of Earl's mouth could alienate more and more fans. Heck, can you imagine the outrage if he made Allison cry with his antics?

If Allison could match Earl straight-up, and if Earl wasn't so Earl, I'd like this idea. But a straight-up match would be a joke, and Earl is extremely Earl, so I'd be very surprised to see this match happen.

For nearly a week now I've been nearly completely incapacitated by Plantar Fasciitis. The common name for this is "Heel Spurs," but in reality the formation of heel spurs can be a result of plantar fasciitis.

From About.com:
"The condition is diagnosed with the classic symptoms of pain well localized
over an area of the bottom of the foot near the heel. Often the pain is most
severe when you first stand on the foot in the morning. The condition is
sometimes, but not always, associated with a sudden gain of weight.

In many cases the pain will gradually subside throughout the day as normal
activities stretch the plantar fascia, the ligament that, when there is
inflammation present, causes the condition of plantar fasciitis."

In my case, the pain has remained pretty much constant each day, and my normal activities have been reduced to mincing around on the balls of my feet to keep pressure off my heels. This also helps to stretch the ligament and that eases the pain somewhat. An added bonus is that I constantly look like I've just shit my pants.

It took me several days to figure out what I'd done to piss my heels off so much. I just got a new table, so I'm playing a lot, but no more than I've played almost every day for the past 9 months. Making room for the new table also involved some demolition work, so I suspected for a short time that carrying around rocks and a sledge hammer may have caused the inflammation, but the demolition work was done weeks ago, and I had no symptoms until early this week. I have not experienced any recent weight gains so that wasn't the problem either.

Last night I got some new inserts for my shoes, and since they cushion my heels very well I went down to shoot some pool. That's where I figured out what was causing my problem.

My new table is larger than my old one, and features much tighter pockets. I found that to maintain the same accuracy I was forced to change my head's position relative to my cue. I needed to have my head lower and farther back.

The problem was in the way I was making this adjustment. Instead of stepping into the shot from farther back to begin with, I was assuming my normal stance, then rocking backwards until my head was in the new, more accurate, position. Basically I was shifting my weight from being evenly distributed across my feet to being almost all on my heels.

I normally play pool 6-8 hours every day, and having that weight on my heels for that much time is, I'm convinced, what caused my condition.

I've got a few more days of taking it easy to look forward to, but the pain is lessening, and I'm confident that I'll be back to normal within a week. You can bet I'll be more careful about settling into my stance from now on. I'm too young to have what's commonly a condition for middle-aged men.

I suppose the point to this is that balance when shooting is very important, not only to provide a stable base from which to swing the cue, but also to prevent painful conditions such as plantar faciitis.

Left untreated, plantar fasciitis can lead to the formation of bone spurs, and the treatment for those is normally surgery to remove the spurs. Doesn't sound like fun to me.