Quote:
Originally Posted by coralpro
·
I point out the inconsistencies in the rules and how they apply them but many just want to accept they are the rules and that is that. We play by them and try to follow them to the letter to the best of intent but it doesn't mean they do not have flaws as to their rulings in certain applications. If they said play it as it lies and never allowed relief I could live with that. You do get good breaks and bad. The problem I do have is giving someone a good break or bad break by no fault of their stroke or because of their stroke. I know, I know, I should just play cards.  |
You point out what
you think are inconsistencies, what
you see as flaws.. We point out why they are not inconsistent within the context and intent of the rules. We give examples and explain our reasoning, which is essentially the same reasoning process that the governing rules bodies would use in discussing a proposed change.
Then you just start repeating the same things over and over, without ever proposing a solution which remains true to the intent of the rules, or that refutes anything I or AF have said. Most of the time you don't even refer back to anything we have said, instead you just ignore it. I don't really even know why I'm still typing this, except that I'm astounded that this can be such a difficult concept to grasp. It would be easier to convince the Pope that Jesus is alive and living in Beverly Hills...
I will end this by repeating the truism... "No man is so blind as he who will not see."
