Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What’s your take on this?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    In law school, my contracts professor liked to tell this story, apropos to this situation. There are different versions of it floating around. This one includes some metaphysical pondering:

    Three umpires are sitting in a bar, sharing a beer together. They begin talking about their job and the difficulties they face in calling balls and strikes. The first umpire states quite confidently, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as they are!” The second umpire, with a slight look of disapproval, says, “No, no, no, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as I seem ’em.” The third umpire says, “You know, you’re both wrong. There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ till I call ’em.”

    And like that, nothing exists until we perceive, label, and interpret it.

    Or, put differently: The first umpire claims we perceive the world as it actually exists. The second umpire claims we interpret the world that exists. The third claims we create the world through our perception of it.

    Every single moment of our life we are experiencing something, even if we are not aware of what we are experiencing. Even while we are unconscious or asleep there is still perception. Neuroscientists now believe that within our brains there are over 11 million neurons firing each second! The firing of these neurons occurs when the brain is active and having some kind of experience. Thus, there is always something filtering through our mind.

    Raw experience, though, almost never remains in that form. Once it rises to a conscious thought, we have already labeled and interpreted it. The colors and movement have become a baseball, and we’ve further judged whether it’s a ball or a strike, good or bad. it may seem like we are passive perceivers, but we are actually active engagers, though we are usually unaware that we are constantly interpreting, creating reality as it happens. This engagement happens automatically and seemingly our of our control, moment to moment. And it’s true, we can’t stop our thoughts. The only reality we know is our concept of it. Life is nothing till we call it something, and this is where mind training comes in. Through it, we learn to hold our concepts loosely, particularly those that allow unhelpful emotions to take over and cause us problems.

    Disturbing emotions are so called because they hypnotize us, in effect, so they become “reality.” These particular thoughts cloud the clarity of mind so that it is completely obscured, and we act as if what exists in our mind is real, unchanging, immutable. We live our life constantly jumping from emotion to emotion, fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes. To create a meaningful, self-directed life, we must confront the untamed, undisciplined, uncontrolled mental activity that we have let run us.

    To take an everyday example, consider drinking a latte. initially, we drink coffee because we are thirsty; we enjoy the taste and smell, and we like how the caffeine gives us a boost. But eventually, our happiness depends on coffee. We feel we can’t start a day without it, and even more, we aren’t truly happy unless we’ve had “good” coffee, our favorite latte. And we no longer just drink our favorite latte; we evaluate each one critically, judging it too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak, too bland or too sweet, and so on. We become unhappy if we have anything that falls short of a “perfect” latte. Suddenly, every morning revolves around our “need” for coffee and our “desire” for the best, and our entire emotional self might hang in the balance. This is crazy. Sadly, we live much of our life at the mercy of such fantasies, and it is a wonder that lasting peace and satisfaction are elusive?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by LSJohn View Post
      (Darrell, I'm directing this at your point also.)

      Rules remind me of "company policy." If a strict interpretation leads away from fairness, rather than toward it, something has gone wrong. A willingness to ignore a rule to find a more just outcome is a good thing IMO, but Darrell is right that this will always lead to diverse opinions. I think it's worth the price.

      Pretty hard for me to find anything I'd put on a higher pedestal than fairness. (Well, yeah, boobs. )
      Jeff's initial question was in the context of the DCC. The answer can only be (assuming the TD knows the rules), B loses. Outside the DCC or any other tournament make your own rules as you go, it's nobody's business but your own. But, don't lose site of the context being served.

      MY earlier comment was an observation that when we opinionate in the face of a rule or a law, we condition ourselves (and others) that rules and laws don't really matter so much if we can rationalize that somebody may be treated unfairly or unjustly. Justice and fairness are subjective concepts and in the eye of the beholder. Unintended consequences are generally the result of failing to recognize, accept, and prosecute the rule or law.

      This conditioning leads to inappropriate thinking on larger issues cause of course, "my opinion is STILL just as good as yours", is the standard. Forgive my analogy once again, but, immigration is a perfect example. Just consider the unintended consequences of not recognizing, accepting, and prosecuting this rule or law.

      I eluded recently to being a boater in the past. One of the things i learned from that experience is that very small things can easily lead to much bigger things that can sink your boat.

      So, my opinion is that it's ok to work to change a rule (law); it is not ok to ignore it. It is not worth it.
      The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tobermory View Post
        In law school, my contracts professor liked to tell this story, apropos to this situation. There are different versions of it floating around. This one includes some metaphysical pondering:

        Three umpires are sitting in a bar, sharing a beer together. They begin talking about their job and the difficulties they face in calling balls and strikes. The first umpire states quite confidently, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as they are!” The second umpire, with a slight look of disapproval, says, “No, no, no, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as I seem ’em.” The third umpire says, “You know, you’re both wrong. There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ till I call ’em.”

        And like that, nothing exists until we perceive, label, and interpret it.

        Or, put differently: The first umpire claims we perceive the world as it actually exists. The second umpire claims we interpret the world that exists. The third claims we create the world through our perception of it.

        Every single moment of our life we are experiencing something, even if we are not aware of what we are experiencing. Even while we are unconscious or asleep there is still perception. Neuroscientists now believe that within our brains there are over 11 million neurons firing each second! The firing of these neurons occurs when the brain is active and having some kind of experience. Thus, there is always something filtering through our mind.

        Raw experience, though, almost never remains in that form. Once it rises to a conscious thought, we have already labeled and interpreted it. The colors and movement have become a baseball, and we’ve further judged whether it’s a ball or a strike, good or bad. it may seem like we are passive perceivers, but we are actually active engagers, though we are usually unaware that we are constantly interpreting, creating reality as it happens. This engagement happens automatically and seemingly our of our control, moment to moment. And it’s true, we can’t stop our thoughts. The only reality we know is our concept of it. Life is nothing till we call it something, and this is where mind training comes in. Through it, we learn to hold our concepts loosely, particularly those that allow unhelpful emotions to take over and cause us problems.

        Disturbing emotions are so called because they hypnotize us, in effect, so they become “reality.” These particular thoughts cloud the clarity of mind so that it is completely obscured, and we act as if what exists in our mind is real, unchanging, immutable. We live our life constantly jumping from emotion to emotion, fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes. To create a meaningful, self-directed life, we must confront the untamed, undisciplined, uncontrolled mental activity that we have let run us.

        To take an everyday example, consider drinking a latte. initially, we drink coffee because we are thirsty; we enjoy the taste and smell, and we like how the caffeine gives us a boost. But eventually, our happiness depends on coffee. We feel we can’t start a day without it, and even more, we aren’t truly happy unless we’ve had “good” coffee, our favorite latte. And we no longer just drink our favorite latte; we evaluate each one critically, judging it too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak, too bland or too sweet, and so on. We become unhappy if we have anything that falls short of a “perfect” latte. Suddenly, every morning revolves around our “need” for coffee and our “desire” for the best, and our entire emotional self might hang in the balance. This is crazy. Sadly, we live much of our life at the mercy of such fantasies, and it is a wonder that lasting peace and satisfaction are elusive?
        Thank you for a refreshing and thought-provoking post.
        Dan

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by darmoose View Post
          Unintended consequences are generally the result of failing to recognize, accept, and prosecute the rule or law.
          I disagree. I'd say that vastly more unintended consequences come from making one-size-fits-all rules/laws that only approximately fit an array similar situations and circumstances. "Spirit of the law" can differ significantly from the letter of the law in many situations, at least partly because it is impossible to write a perfect law to cover every situation. Isn't justice the most important thing we're looking for when we write a law ("we" doesn't count any resident of The Swamp. )

          immigration is a perfect example.
          Reminds me of our recent discussions about two other big situations analgous to that (too far off topic, so beat me with a hose) :"making schools safe" and "fixing" the perceived or alleged problems in the Middle East. Some problems can't be solved at the price you're willing to pay (in terms of money, freedom, fairness and unintended consequences.) Huge resources have been put into these problems, yet here we are. Time will tell whether investing much, much more will do the jobs.

          Comment


          • #35
            I believe if our rules had been truly belabored over, like they do in golf for example, where they really make a concerted effort to garner a fair set of rules and put all the necessary time into the process, then what you said would hold weight.

            As it stands however, and we can rationalize all we want as far as admitting this, but our rules have not been belabored over in the slightest. I'd be curious of the actual history, but it seems to me a few guys got together 50 or whatever number of years ago, made some rules, and by and large these are the rules we are playing under today.

            There are things that severely need to be address in one pocket in my opinion, like why an actual common and approved shot in one pocket consists of purposefully launching the cb off the table in search of an advantage, with the shooter many times clearing people out of the adjacent areas. We have really got to step back, be objective, and ask ourselves if that is befitting of our game, because the fact is, it is not.

            So yes, our rules do need relatively high amount of interpretation, because the answer in so many of the situations like the one posted don't even exist.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tobermory View Post
              we learn to hold our concepts loosely
              What I like about this thought may be aomething a little different than was intended, but it is, don't jump to conclusions and, in fact, even after studying and considering a situation, to leave open in my mind a little room for the possibility that I might still be wrong.


              fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes.
              That can certainly be the case, but bad luck does exist. People are often victims of circumstances that they didn't cause any part of. The trick is in recognizing whether a situation arose because of real bad luck, or poor thinking, planning or execution. Easy to see a on pocket analogy there.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by El Chapo View Post
                purposefully launching the cb off the table
                I don't expect many people to agree with me, but I think it would be a good idea to allow the shot to just be declared verbally and not need to be struck.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by LSJohn View Post
                  I don't expect many people to agree with me, but I think it would be a good idea to allow the shot to just be declared verbally and not need to be struck.
                  John...I do this with my pals Donn, John, & Pat when we play - so we don't send the cueball flying across the poolroom, and don't have to go to the hassle of warning other players and sweaters to take cover...

                  - Ghost
                  jrhendy: Ghost does come up with shots that others don't see.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The jumped cue ball rule is one I would not mind seeing go. I don't think just declaring it would fly at high stakes or tournaments though -- but that is just my personal opinion and many others of you have way way more experience at both of those than me. I would be inclined just to eliminate it as an option. I.e, either dig it out, or follow it in.

                    But if we do that, how do you write it? I mean a jump shot is legal with your playing cue, and it is only a common foul to have the cue ball jump the table. Fine, if the object ball goes in the hole you can still have it count for the opponent (that rule change is easy), but what if the object ball also jumps the table? Or better yet, only the object ball jumps the table? With either of those as possibilities, you would have to ban the jump too or it would still be tempting to try it.

                    I'm just wondering specifically how you would re-write the rule to prevent jumping attempts.
                    "One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
                    -- Strawberry Brooks

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by LSJohn View Post
                      If we're being technical, isn't that a foul by Player A? If so, when Player B made his error, it was no longer Player A's inning, so it was not "interference."
                      Well, the addendum to rule 10.4 implies that it is. But OTOH it also sounds more like an advisory. But that's why I stated that player "A" had committed two no-nos.

                      ~Doc

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Loss of Game?

                        IMHO, as the balls in the game have not been moved and the balls recently returned to the table have not changed the position of the balls in play, then it will be like any other cue ball foul. The fouler will spot a ball and the foulee will have ball in hand behind the head string. The other balls will be returned to each players' cache. Continue with the game.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by gulfportdoc View Post
                          Well, the addendum to rule 10.4 implies that it is. But OTOH it also sounds more like an advisory. But that's why I stated that player "A" had committed two no-nos.

                          ~Doc
                          Oh, Doc, you're right, that is only an advisory. I thought I had read that it was verbotten by the rules. Mah bayad.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Patrick Johnson View Post
                            If it’s a refereed match, then it seems to me that moving the cue ball because player A prematurely declared the game over has to work against player A, either by ball-in-hand foul (if the remaining 2 balls weren’t moved) or by loss of game. I have no authoritative basis for this whatsoever.

                            If it’s just the boys playing for this week’s custody of the mad money, then of course it’s whoever’s loudest, as usual.

                            pj
                            chgo
                            Ain't that the truth about the loudest.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Tobermory View Post
                              In law school, my contracts professor liked to tell this story, apropos to this situation. There are different versions of it floating around. This one includes some metaphysical pondering:

                              Three umpires are sitting in a bar, sharing a beer together. They begin talking about their job and the difficulties they face in calling balls and strikes. The first umpire states quite confidently, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as they are!” The second umpire, with a slight look of disapproval, says, “No, no, no, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as I seem ’em.” The third umpire says, “You know, you’re both wrong. There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ till I call ’em.”

                              And like that, nothing exists until we perceive, label, and interpret it.

                              Or, put differently: The first umpire claims we perceive the world as it actually exists. The second umpire claims we interpret the world that exists. The third claims we create the world through our perception of it.

                              Every single moment of our life we are experiencing something, even if we are not aware of what we are experiencing. Even while we are unconscious or asleep there is still perception. Neuroscientists now believe that within our brains there are over 11 million neurons firing each second! The firing of these neurons occurs when the brain is active and having some kind of experience. Thus, there is always something filtering through our mind.

                              Raw experience, though, almost never remains in that form. Once it rises to a conscious thought, we have already labeled and interpreted it. The colors and movement have become a baseball, and we’ve further judged whether it’s a ball or a strike, good or bad. it may seem like we are passive perceivers, but we are actually active engagers, though we are usually unaware that we are constantly interpreting, creating reality as it happens. This engagement happens automatically and seemingly our of our control, moment to moment. And it’s true, we can’t stop our thoughts. The only reality we know is our concept of it. Life is nothing till we call it something, and this is where mind training comes in. Through it, we learn to hold our concepts loosely, particularly those that allow unhelpful emotions to take over and cause us problems.

                              Disturbing emotions are so called because they hypnotize us, in effect, so they become “reality.” These particular thoughts cloud the clarity of mind so that it is completely obscured, and we act as if what exists in our mind is real, unchanging, immutable. We live our life constantly jumping from emotion to emotion, fearing and cursing the balls and strikes coming our way, and forget that we are the ones who created balls and strikes. To create a meaningful, self-directed life, we must confront the untamed, undisciplined, uncontrolled mental activity that we have let run us.

                              To take an everyday example, consider drinking a latte. initially, we drink coffee because we are thirsty; we enjoy the taste and smell, and we like how the caffeine gives us a boost. But eventually, our happiness depends on coffee. We feel we can’t start a day without it, and even more, we aren’t truly happy unless we’ve had “good” coffee, our favorite latte. And we no longer just drink our favorite latte; we evaluate each one critically, judging it too hot or too cold, too strong or too weak, too bland or too sweet, and so on. We become unhappy if we have anything that falls short of a “perfect” latte. Suddenly, every morning revolves around our “need” for coffee and our “desire” for the best, and our entire emotional self might hang in the balance. This is crazy. Sadly, we live much of our life at the mercy of such fantasies, and it is a wonder that lasting peace and satisfaction are elusive?
                              What a great post. And F Starbucks!!!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                player declares himself a winner and starts putting balls on the table.

                                opponent falls for this whether it was intentional or not it doesnt matter.

                                player b ends up losing the game. wtf. is wrong with that you say.

                                well, all rulings should go against the one who benefits from shooting an angle to win.

                                other wise if we go by strict rules then it pays to do this exact thing on opponents trying to get them to make a forfeit move.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X