Cowboy Dennis
Verified Member
99 posts in this thread and that's the only comment you have? Don't think too hard Dave, you'll get a headache.KindlyOleUncleDave said:Huh?
Firm grasp of what?
99 posts in this thread and that's the only comment you have? Don't think too hard Dave, you'll get a headache.KindlyOleUncleDave said:Huh?
Firm grasp of what?
suki said:Come on, you can do better than that, those examples are all matches that are already being ref;d or umpired or whatever. Come up with un refereed examples. That is what the question is really.[/QUOTE
Ummm,that's the whole point of my post.How are we ever going to play pool without a reff?? I trust no one.Thank you.John B.
John,John Brumback said:Don't ever shark me again by spilling your coffee while I'm shooting. Your supposed to be still while your over there In your chair.hehehehe,John B.
Cowboy Dennis said:John,
You simply must stop posting at the same time as me, what will the neighbors think?
Dennis
Cowboy Dennis said:If it's one question then you wasted a question mark. Where are your smilies? deys be comin
Jeez, I sure hope this clears it up for you. likeswize
P.S. I want smilies next time. looks balow, dare dey be
Dennis
John Brumback said:Don't ever shark me again by spilling your coffee while I'm shooting. Your supposed to be still while your over there In your chair.hehehehe,John B.
Cowboy Dennis said:Bill,
This is not a discussion about ethics at all except by those who think it is. As Kris Kristofferson wrote "everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on, who they can feel better than at any time they please, someone doing something dirty, decent folks can frown on, if you can't find nobody else then help yourself to me".
Dennis
Cary said:No, it's a discussion about integrity, which is defined (by many, and to simplify) as doing the right thing when no one is watching. All of this discussion is simply various, often understandable and possibly justifiable excuses for behaving in an unethical** manner.
**Since we're playing semantics, integrity, while not ethics, is an integral subset of ethics. If you like we can say we are discussing "an" ethic.
I think I am approaching my last post on this subject. Cary, my integrity could only be called into question if I didn't call a foul on myself but I did allow you to call one on yourself. If you have read any of my posts you will have probably seen that I wrote at least three times now that I will not allow you to call a foul on yourself that I didn't see. All of you people on your moralistic high-horses who wouldn't bet you were alive don't even have a clue as to what I've written. It's also clear from the ignorant responses for two days now that none of you have ever had this come up in a game where it would be to your opponents advantage to spot a ball up. I have had it happen.Cary said:No, it's a discussion about integrity, which is defined (by many, and to simplify) as doing the right thing when no one is watching. All of this discussion is simply various, often understandable and possibly justifiable excuses for behaving in an unethical** manner.
**Since we're playing semantics, integrity, while not ethics, is an integral subset of ethics. If you like we can say we are discussing "an" ethic.
Artie,Artie Bodendorfer said:Its logical but not etical. And usualy most off theese ethical people are people who dont gamble.
Because anyone that gambles knowes you are responsable for your game and what happines. Not the spectators or you wernt looking or anything at all.
And I do the wright thing when I gamble. But If a person is not warching the game and paying attention too what is going on. Then the besr rhing rhat can happen after the game tells him that his opponent fouled.
And maybe he will learn his lession and pay attention yoo whats going on.
And he needs too do that anyway. Because if he doesnt so that he leaves himself open too reay get F,
People will take balls from his rack. Pick up his balls he made. Or even move balls when he is not looking. And that would be cheating. Or forget too spot a ball.
WE use too play if you sleep the spot on a ball that a player owes Its too late. Too tell the player he owes a ball.
And why I dont disagree with this completly. Is because theese people learn too watch whats going on. And pay attention too the game.
And they will learn there lession sooner or latter Maybe.
I sont do this but people who do I cant blame them for doing whatever they can. Too win.
And even with a reff thier are mant wrong calls. But we have too go by rhem. And Tennies was a real good game to argue over the line calls.
Mackanrow is one off the best. At arguing. And If you watch Kobe from the lakers . He complaines and argues on every foul against him.
Thats because he is trying too get the reff to give him the calls. And he is a great player So the reffs give him the best off the calls.
Because off who he is and the reffs know that the people will get on thier case when a great player complaines.
And even in baseball the give the great pitchers the close calls. Or give a close call too a great hitter.
The best thing I can say play people who are like you. And dont gamble much. Because thier not going too do you a favor. By calling a foul on themselves.
Emagine playing for one hundred thousan dollaers and you call a foul on yourself. And the foul costs you the hundred thousand.
I call that triple integraty.
Cowboy Dennis said:John,
It's my job to watch your inning at the table, I don't let players call fouls on themselves. Conversely, I'm not putting up a ball unless you call a foul on me. It's your job when I'm at the table to watch my shot.
Dennis
Cowboy Dennis said:Artie,
You may as well go outside and talk to the desert for all the good it will do. These ignorant people get off on thinking that we are immoral, dishonest, lacking character & integrity, and are generally all-around cheaters if we don't agree with them.
People who've never bet nothing in their life and never played nobody who could play think they are better than us, it's that simple. They are too lazy and stupid to do their job when they are the non-shooter and must rely on the kindness of strangers to help them win.
Dennis
cuesmith,cuesmith said:Do you feel the same logic applies to "sleepers"? Failing to spot a ball you owe from a previous foul, after you've made a ball in a later inning. In some places it's common to play that if you're opponent doesn't remind you that you owe a ball after you make a ball later, you no longer owe the ball. I have mixed feelings on this subject and generally do what's common at the place I'm playing. I remember once when John B was playing Mark Mazden under those rules and Mark would put his key ring, with dozens of keys on it in John's hole when he owed a ball as a reminder. It sounded like a xylophone when John made a ball on top of all those keys. I know John didn't like Mark using this tactic at all!
Cowboy Dennis said:cuesmith,
What do you want to know? You are either playing sleepers or you are not playing sleepers. What's so hard to understand about that? Get the rules straight before you start if you are in a strange room. This question has nothing to do with this thread.
Dennis
Cowboy Dennis said:Bill,
To me, winning, at its simplest, means overcoming obstacles to reach a goal. That's all winning is in any game. My opponent is supposed to put obstacles in place to hinder my winning. One of those obstacles is watching my shots and calling necessary fouls or other infractions of the rules governing the game. If he does his job then I have to play my best to overcome the obstacles, if he doesn't then I don't. I never have cared if I beat my opponent or if I won money or not. As Rocky said: "I ain't emotionally involved". When I gamble there is zero ego involvement in what I do. I don't care who I ever beat or who the hell ever beat me. It's not that important to me and never has been.
Playing pool certainly doesn't make me feel alive, I've played one time in about 6 months, maybe 7 or 8 I don't remember. I am planning on playing tomorrow though .
SactownTom, who runs tournaments all the time said that it is in the rules that the non-shooter calls fouls. That means I play within the rules(at least tournament rules), you can't ask for more than that even though I don't really care what tournament rules are.
I think you need to read all the posts in this thread and understand what they mean. You keep saying the same thing over and over. I have clearly and more than once said that I will not allow my opponent to call a foul on himself and spot up a ball. Do you understand what that means? It means that if you are playing me (gambling) you are not going to call a foul on yourself and spot up a ball. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It's my job to call fouls on my opponent, it's not his job, nor will I let him.
Dennis
Cowboy Dennis's response in red to Steve L said:You and I are playing and I went to sit down and spilled my coffee and while I was wiping it up you shot and fouled then went and sat down.If you and I were gambling (for the first time) and I fouled when you weren't looking I would tell you I fouled and I would spot a ball up, no problem.
hehe... sorry, I couldn't help myself, it was the only way I could get rid of the voice in my head that said "it's too perfect", you got to do itCowboy Dennis said:For the last time I'll say it again: I WILL NOT LET YOU CALL A FOUL ON YOURSELF AND SPOT A BALL UP. Now, hows that for integrity? The same rule applies to you as to me.
Dennis
I have to come in from the garage to see this??? It is funny Greg but now a whole other batch of morons will call me out on it. No problem though, I'm just about done with this thread anyway. Just about.CaliRed said:hehe... sorry, I couldn't help myself, it was the only way I could get rid of the voice in my head that said "it's too perfect", you got to do it
Cowboy Dennis said:I think I am approaching my last post on this subject. Cary, my integrity could only be called into question if I didn't call a foul on myself but I did allow you to call one on yourself. If you have read any of my posts you will have probably seen that I wrote at least three times now that I will not allow you to call a foul on yourself that I didn't see. All of you people on your moralistic high-horses who wouldn't bet you were alive don't even have a clue as to what I've written. It's also clear from the ignorant responses for two days now that none of you have ever had this come up in a game where it would be to your opponents advantage to spot a ball up. I have had it happen.
If the rule is the same for both of us how can it be lacking in integrity? For the last time I'll say it again: I WILL NOT LET YOU CALL A FOUL ON YOURSELF AND SPOT A BALL UP. Now, hows that for integrity? The same rule applies to you as to me.
Dennis
Bill,bstroud said:Perhaps I am missing your point?
What is an intentional foul? Is it not a foul perpetrated by oneself?
Are you saying I can't take an intentional scratch because you won't allow it?
What kind of logic is that?
The intentional scratch is part of the game just the same as admitting you touched the cue ball when your opponent wasn't looking.
The fact that I would back away from the shot and spot a ball doesn't make me any better than you. It is just how I grew up playing. It is what I think is the right way to play. It has nothing to do with you. You can play anyway you want.
But if we ever do play you can't tell me that I can't take a foul when I want. It's part of the game.
Bill Stroud
John Brumback said:Calling a foul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be a dumb ? or It might have been gone over,But anyway....
What if your opp Is not paying attention and you don't hit a rail after contact,
do you call It on yourself or not? I have wondered about this for a long time.
Thanks,John B.
Cowboy Dennis said:John,
It's my job to watch your inning at the table, I don't let players call fouls on themselves. Conversely, I'm not putting up a ball unless you call a foul on me. It's your job when I'm at the table to watch my shot.
Dennis
__________________
Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.