Originally Posted by Mike O
|
Trust me - you need a health warning!
I also just remembered that for me- your posts per thread - go on forever - without myself ever figuring out what you are saying. So I'm wrestling with the wrong tiger.
|
Yeah whatever....
Are you just going to take every piece of my humour and say it back. At least if your going to try and be funny at least come up with your own material. Its like being at school and one kid calling another some names and the kid saying back "well you are too...". Its just not a good comeback...
You know as well as anyone here that I know what I am talking about. Thats not being egotistic, its just I have done these things in 3D to test my knowledge. My threads generally go on and on because I try and describe the minute details of things.
|
Quote:
|
|
I'm with you on the perpendicular example- I just showed that one as it was easy to show with a "machine" like that- where low point would be- before we moved on to a different "7" machine that might not as easily look like low point would still be opposite the lead shoulder.
|
I mean this is pretty simple and your overcomplicating by trying to add in unnessesary elements into the debate because your on the losing side.
Let me ask some very simple easy questions - Forget your 7 example - Just take the primary lever assembly and forget everything else....
The question is does the left shoulder move upwards from impact and through low point? - Yes that is a fact.
Since the left shoulder moving upwards does this mean the whole primary lever assembly is also moving upwards? - yes this is fact.
Since the whole primary lever assembly moves upwards and the clubhead is a part of the primary lever assembly - does this move the clubhead upwards too? - Yes this is a fact.
Since the left shoulder is continually moving upwards mean that this effect is only going to make the clubhead orbit have its lowest point prior to the point it passes the left shoulder when viewed directly from the front - Yes , Yes, YES....
Now, after I have listed these questions - your only possible counterarguement is that the clubhead which is moving around the left wrist which makes the clubhead radius around the left shoulder 'wider' (for lack of better word) could perhaps counteract this in some way. Unfortunately for you, I know this counteraction to be nominal because I tested it so your still on the losing side of the debate, so if you wish to go down this road then its ok by me....
|
Quote:
|
|
Then you bounced back to the human body- to show the absurdity of a perpendicular example. If you did that with the Golfing Machine- there would be a lot of absurdity in that book.
|
No I didn't bounce back. Again yet another absurd arguement. When did I ever get off the topic of how it works in real life?
If your going to critique me of bouncing around at least use the quote button....
|
Quote:
|
I like good discussions back and forth- those are the ones that you can learn stuff from. It's not my style to use impossible, absurd, etc. when posting but I've readily admitted that I'm an idiot at times- and Bucket has confirmed and not argued that statement when I have said it- although he's an idiot also- so I'm not sure where that leaves me!
|
My post to Bucket was in an obvious comedic style with good spirited humour.
Your reply on the otherhand made no such obvious distinction to the comedic intention of the sarcasm and condescension. So don't be a hypocrit and whine about how I said your
arguements are absurd. Your style could easy be taken (rightly or wrongly) as more insulting than me saying what your saying is totally wrong and bordering on the ludicrious, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was done in humour. So knock that ***t off....