Touching another man’s clubs

[jholz]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @jholz said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @jholz said:

> > > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > > >

> > > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > > >

> > > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > > >

> > > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > > >

> > > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> > >

> > > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> > >

> > > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> > >

> >

> > Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

> >

> > And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

> >

> > Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

> >

> > For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

> >

> > Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

> >

> > So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

> >

> > Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

> >

> > Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

> >

> > What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

> >

> > Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

> >

> > So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

> >

> > You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

>

> Sheldon ?

>

> Sheldon Cooper ? Is that you ? LMAO>

I fail to understand your cryptic pop culture references. Allusions are a poor and lazy form of argument. But, when you are fishing for likes and laughs on the interwebs, engaging in debate is the last thing you want to do. That just opens you up for derision from mendicants and shut-ins.

Oh the horror...

[hybrid25]

I think it's somewhat poor etiquette to handle someone else's clubs w/o asking first, especially if you don't know them.

[nsxguy]

> @jholz said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @jholz said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > > > >

> > > > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > > > >

> > > > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > > > >

> > > > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > > > >

> > > > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> > > >

> > > > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> > > >

> > > > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

> > >

> > > And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

> > >

> > > Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

> > >

> > > For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

> > >

> > > Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

> > >

> > > So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

> > >

> > > Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

> > >

> > > Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

> > >

> > > What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

> > >

> > > Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

> > >

> > > So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

> > >

> > > You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

> >

> > Sheldon ?

> >

> > Sheldon Cooper ? Is that you ? LMAO>

> I fail to understand your cryptic pop culture references. Allusions are a poor and lazy form of argument. But, when you are fishing for likes and laughs on the interwebs, engaging in debate is the last thing you want to do. That just opens you up for derision from mendicants and shut-ins.

> Oh the horror...

 

Lighten up Francis, it wasn't an argument, it was a JOKE !!! Send me you name and address and I'll send you a quarter to buy a sense of humor.

 

But I have to wonder how you even knew was a "cryptic pop culture reference" ? Occam's Razor ? LOL

 

But you want a debate ? OK, no problem. I think the OP, and especially you, are engaging in totally unreasonable ways. The pro didn't threaten his family and the guy even KNEW it was th pro. BFD.

 

And your "Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door" is so,,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,,, idiotic, there's really no sense in debating you in the first place. So I shall take my leave,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you're welcome,,,,,,,,,,,,, {tipping hat}

[HatsForBats]

> @hybrid25 said:

> I think it's somewhat poor etiquette to handle someone else's clubs w/o asking first, especially if you don't know them.

 

That's much more rational than what you originally wrote. I don't know though. If it was at a driving range I wouldn't consider the person a complete stranger (edit: if they didn't look sketchy) but rather a fellow golfer. It just wouldn't bother me much if they pulled out an iron that is worth maybe $30. In the case of the person being the club pro it wouldn't be a blip on the radar.

 

 

[jholz]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @jholz said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> > > > >

> > > > > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

> > > >

> > > > And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

> > > >

> > > > Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

> > > >

> > > > For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

> > > >

> > > > Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

> > > >

> > > > So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

> > > >

> > > > Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

> > > >

> > > > Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

> > > >

> > > > What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

> > > >

> > > > Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

> > > >

> > > > So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

> > > >

> > > > You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

> > >

> > > Sheldon ?

> > >

> > > Sheldon Cooper ? Is that you ? LMAO>

> > I fail to understand your cryptic pop culture references. Allusions are a poor and lazy form of argument. But, when you are fishing for likes and laughs on the interwebs, engaging in debate is the last thing you want to do. That just opens you up for derision from mendicants and shut-ins.

> > Oh the horror...

>

> Lighten up Francis, it wasn't an argument, it was a JOKE !!! Send me you name and address and I'll send you a quarter to buy a sense of humor.

>

> But I have to wonder how you even knew was a "cryptic pop culture reference" ? Occam's Razor ? LOL

>

> But you want a debate ? OK, no problem. I think the OP, and especially you, are engaging in totally unreasonable ways. The pro didn't threaten his family and the guy even KNEW it was th pro. BFD.

>

> And your "Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door" is so,,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,,, idiotic, there's really no sense in debating you in the first place. So I shall take my leave,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you're welcome,,,,,,,,,,,,, {tipping hat}

 

I know it was a joke mon frer.

 

That kind of joke is a common tactic that people use when they disagree with you, but don't really understand why and can't (or refuse to) completely articulate their position. Other common tactics include: hyperbole, derision, and claims that a given topic is not worth your time. Your addition of the "mic drop and I'm out" (if you will allow the conceit) at the end is a nice touch. You've got them all covered here.

 

So, I sincerely apologize to you nsxguy. I am not trying to ruin your day. I have consistently shown you and your opinions respect by providing thoughtful and reasonably complete responses to your posts. I have also openly, sincerely, apologized to you on two occasions now - you may remember the one from the "WRX Reboot" thread.

 

What more can I do for you?

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

> @jholz said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @jholz said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

> > > > >

> > > > > Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

> > > > >

> > > > > For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

> > > > >

> > > > > So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

> > > > >

> > > > > What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

> > > >

> > > > Sheldon ?

> > > >

> > > > Sheldon Cooper ? Is that you ? LMAO>

> > > I fail to understand your cryptic pop culture references. Allusions are a poor and lazy form of argument. But, when you are fishing for likes and laughs on the interwebs, engaging in debate is the last thing you want to do. That just opens you up for derision from mendicants and shut-ins.

> > > Oh the horror...

> >

> > Lighten up Francis, it wasn't an argument, it was a JOKE !!! Send me you name and address and I'll send you a quarter to buy a sense of humor.

> >

> > But I have to wonder how you even knew was a "cryptic pop culture reference" ? Occam's Razor ? LOL

> >

> > But you want a debate ? OK, no problem. I think the OP, and especially you, are engaging in totally unreasonable ways. The pro didn't threaten his family and the guy even KNEW it was th pro. BFD.

> >

> > And your "Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door" is so,,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,,, idiotic, there's really no sense in debating you in the first place. So I shall take my leave,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you're welcome,,,,,,,,,,,,, {tipping hat}

>

> I know it was a joke mon frer.

>

> That kind of joke is a common tactic that people use when they disagree with you, but don't really understand why and can't (or refuse to) completely articulate their position. Other common tactics include: hyperbole, derision, and claims that a given topic is not worth your time. Your addition of the "mic drop and I'm out" (if you will allow the conceit) at the end is a nice touch. You've got them all covered here.

>

> So, I sincerely apologize to you nsxguy. I am not trying to ruin your day. I have consistently shown you and your opinions respect by providing thoughtful and reasonably complete responses to your posts. I have also openly, sincerely, apologized to you on two occasions now - you may remember the one from the "WRX Reboot" thread.

>

> What more can I do for you?

>

>

>

 

Nada jholz, and no apologies necessary, and no, I seldom remember a dust up from another thread or another time with another poster. Perhaps I had a bad day, or he/she/you did. No big deal. Most of this stuff seems important at the time but just isn't all that important much later and grudges, even the internet variety, are WAY too heavy to carry around for very long.

 

Frankly, as I believe I've mentioned I at least somewhat agree with the OP and you. Personally I would never touch another guy's clubs without first asking if he minded and that's someone I know.

 

But again, he knew it was the Pro so to me, NBD.

 

Later

 

 

[jholz]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @jholz said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > @jholz said:

> > > > > > > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sheldon ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sheldon Cooper ? Is that you ? LMAO>

> > > > I fail to understand your cryptic pop culture references. Allusions are a poor and lazy form of argument. But, when you are fishing for likes and laughs on the interwebs, engaging in debate is the last thing you want to do. That just opens you up for derision from mendicants and shut-ins.

> > > > Oh the horror...

> > >

> > > Lighten up Francis, it wasn't an argument, it was a JOKE !!! Send me you name and address and I'll send you a quarter to buy a sense of humor.

> > >

> > > But I have to wonder how you even knew was a "cryptic pop culture reference" ? Occam's Razor ? LOL

> > >

> > > But you want a debate ? OK, no problem. I think the OP, and especially you, are engaging in totally unreasonable ways. The pro didn't threaten his family and the guy even KNEW it was th pro. BFD.

> > >

> > > And your "Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door" is so,,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,,, idiotic, there's really no sense in debating you in the first place. So I shall take my leave,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you're welcome,,,,,,,,,,,,, {tipping hat}

> >

> > I know it was a joke mon frer.

> >

> > That kind of joke is a common tactic that people use when they disagree with you, but don't really understand why and can't (or refuse to) completely articulate their position. Other common tactics include: hyperbole, derision, and claims that a given topic is not worth your time. Your addition of the "mic drop and I'm out" (if you will allow the conceit) at the end is a nice touch. You've got them all covered here.

> >

> > So, I sincerely apologize to you nsxguy. I am not trying to ruin your day. I have consistently shown you and your opinions respect by providing thoughtful and reasonably complete responses to your posts. I have also openly, sincerely, apologized to you on two occasions now - you may remember the one from the "WRX Reboot" thread.

> >

> > What more can I do for you?

> >

> >

> >

>

> Nada jholz, and no apologies necessary, and no, I seldom remember a dust up from another thread or another time with another poster. Perhaps I had a bad day, or he/she/you did. No big deal. Most of this stuff seems important at the time but just isn't all that important much later and grudges, even the internet variety, are WAY too heavy to carry around for very long.

>

> Frankly, as I believe I've mentioned I at least somewhat agree with the OP and you. Personally I would never touch another guy's clubs without first asking if he minded and that's someone I know.

>

> But again, he knew it was the Pro so to me, NBD.

>

> Later

>

>

 

Cool man. I really appreciate the sentiment here. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[Augster]

According to a lot of responses here, it seems the new pro is a thief and he was in your house AND your car? Man, you should have called the police. I agree, if our new pro, who I have reason to believe is a thief, comes into my house, uninvited, and takes a club out of my bag, I’m probably going to be pissed.

 

Is that a truer representation of what actually happened?

 

In my initial reading, the OP was at the driving range which also happens to be the new pro’s WORKPLACE. So the OP willingly brought his clubs to this guy’s place of work. In the OP there was no mention of this guy being a thief. Pretty dumb to steal stuff at his work from potential customers. Also, in the OP, the OP recognized the pro and likely knew who he was, his occupation, where he worked, and his name. Not exactly a stranger.

 

Much ado (and posts) about nothing. Mountain:molehill.

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @jholz said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @jholz said:

> > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > >

> > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > >

> > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > >

> > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > >

> > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> >

> > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> >

> > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> >

>

> Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

>

> And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

>

> Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

>

> For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

>

> Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

>

> So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

>

> Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

>

> Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

>

> What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

>

> Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

>

> So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

>

> You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

 

I don't disagree, but this opus could be shorter. By that, I mean haiku shorter:

 

Dude's touching my clubs.

Don't like it. No, not one bit.

Where is Miss Manners?

[jholz]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @jholz said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @jholz said:

> > > > For those that question why anyone would get upset about someone touching their stuff without their permission, I have a few questions for you.

> > > >

> > > > Have you ever had anything stolen? Are you aware that some people steal stuff? Additionally, have you ever noticed that some people have a tendency to be less careful with stuff that doesn't belong to them?

> > > >

> > > > Given these well established truths of human nature, if someone is messing with my stuff without asking, a small part of me is always going to wonder: "Are they trying to steal my stuff? Are they going to bash my driver into the sidewalk?" In this world, you have no idea what people might do.

> > > >

> > > > For those that still don't have a problem with the scenario as presented - do you just not care about your stuff? Are you willing to let someone damage it or walk away with it? Or, are you simply assuming that any person at a driving range - whether golf pro or not - is above theft or carelessness? It seems you are living in a different reality than my own.

> > > >

> > > > Theft, ultimately, is the fault of the idiot that fails to lock their door.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I’m assuming you missed the part in the first paragraph where this random guy was the new pro at the club? Do you honestly believe the new pro at the club is going to steal an iron from his bag, or bash his driver on the sidewalk?

> > >

> > > And yes, I’ve had stuff stolen. Had vehicles broken into. Neither of which is applicable to the club pro on the driving range.

> > >

> > > When I was younger, I might have been put off by it, but not to the point of the OP. The older I get, the less I care about getting worked up over silly things, and this is a silly thing to get worked up over in the context of the situation.

> > >

> >

> > Nah, I caught that part. He's the **_new_** club pro, right?

> >

> > And yes, you do correctly bring up a point of potential disagreement - this issue of familiarity or "how well do we have to know someone before we are cool with them touching our stuff?" Within this topic, you are also correct to point out that I am making an assumption based on the OP's use of the term "new." Based upon the OP's use of this term, I am making an assumption that the OP has had either "no or limited contact" with the individual in question. This assumption could be true or false and I have based it upon limited evidence. You are correct. Nonetheless...

> >

> > Based upon my assumption that the OP has had "no or limited contact" with the new club pro, I took my analysis of the situation a few steps further.

> >

> > For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously.

> >

> > Now, when I say something like that, I have to catch myself for a minute - because we get into the rather sticky subject of how we define the term "reasonable suspicion." You might get the sense that I walk around with a pistol in my golf bag or something. That isn't the case. I am "**_reasonable_**."

> >

> > So, for this particular incident, I would define "reasonable suspicion" as a level similar to lending your lighter to some random stranger in a bar. They might be fine folks, but that doesn't mean they won't slip your lighter into their pocket and walk away with it. And this isn't because they are thieves, it's because they are human. People do that kind of ****. Therefore, if I lend a lighter to a guy in a bar, and I care about getting it back, I am going to watch that person like a hawk. Experience has taught me this.

> >

> > Now, you might get the impression from the above analogy that I am suggesting that it is reasonable for me to assume that the new club pro in the OP's story was going to slip his $500 driver into his pocket and walk away. This, of course, is not the case. He didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anything. I am sure that he had no intention of doing so.

> >

> > Yet, because the OP is like me - and seems to have grown up around other human beings - he's going to get a bit distracted if someone is eyeing up his stuff. For us, this is a natural and anticipated response to this kind of behavior.

> >

> > What the new club pro did - or actually failed to do - was to understand something about how humans operate, and to take that into account when he approached someone new. As a result, he offended the OP. Like the OP, I think the new club pro is clueless.

> >

> > Here's why. Growing up surrounded by humans and coming through a system of human education, I think it reasonable (once again) to assume that the new club pro has been told - on countless occasions - "don't touch stuff that doesn't belong to you" or "ask before you touch something that doesn't belong to you." The people who came up with advice like that know how humans operate and how they feel. They take that into account when contemplating actions, and they act accordingly. When they find out what works, they try to pass that advice along to others in the form of rules, which we call etiquette. Having rules like this not only helps to prevent conflict, our adherence to those rules is also interpreted by other human beings as a sign of respect. In other words, if you have any respect for me as a human being, you won't come up and touch my stuff without asking, because you can reasonably anticipate that it will disturb or bother me.

> >

> > So, through a lack of caring or cluelessness, the new club pro totally disrespected the OP. Cut and dry. From this, I am able to assert with confidence that OP's new club pro = clueless douchebag. Until he showed me something different, that's the opinion I would hold.

> >

> > You are more than welcome to disagree with me, but you can't say that my position on this issue hasn't been carefully thought out.

>

> I don't disagree, but this opus could be shorter. By that, I mean haiku shorter:

>

> Dude's touching my clubs.

> Don't like it. No, not one bit.

> Where is Miss Manners?

 

Could my treatise (not opus) have been shorter? Yeah, some rigorous editing might have tightened it up a bit.

 

But, by distilling it down to a haiku, you are simply replicating the argument that myself and others have presented countless times in this thread - "don't touch other people's stuff without asking." Your way is more clever and perhaps invites some additional level of engagement through it's poetic presentation, but at the end of the day, it is simply a rule or a maxim.

 

This simple presentation of rules or maxims tends to invite the responses that everyone else received when they tried to provide this advice. Things like: "get off my lawn" and "lighten up" and "why should we follow rules like this? They are stupid" and "why isn't everyone entitled to their own opinion?" and things of that nature. That's the point where the discussion needs to be pushed further to counter those responses. Simply stating the rule again isn't going to be productive.

 

So, my lengthy post attempts to explain the reasoning behind the maxim or rule, the "reasons" why a rule like this exists and why it should be followed.

 

These rules don't come out of thin air. They are not "self-evident" as the discussion in this thread exemplifies. They have been examined, tested, and refined through the process of "reasoning" that draws on thousands of years of human experience. That "reasoning" process is one that takes place through language and it is extremely complex. To completely and correctly replicate that process, one needs to use a lot of language - hence the length of my post.

 

If people weren't so loath to engage with lengthy bits of text, if they were willing to engage in the rigorous process of reasoning, we would probably find that we agree on a hell of a lot more than we think we do. Looking at the world around us today, I think that this is a pretty important cause to champion.

 

I'll get off my soapbox now...

 

 

 

 

[Matt J]

I generally follow said rule. I wouldn't pull a stranger's club out of his bag, mostly out of fear that I would knock the bag over or somehow damage a club, and I appreciate that some people are peculiar about their belongings. That being said, if this same thing happened to me I wouldn't care and I'm currently playing Miuras. Even if you extrapolate worst case scenario and he did accidentally knock my bag over and all the clubs bounced on the concrete I don't think I'd be bothered. All stuff is transient and a deep rooted connection to physical possessions is unhealthy. Your mental health is not my concern but it should be yours. As is the answer to most things on this forum, either let it go or say something. Your "stink eye" is passive aggressive and you started this thread out of shame that you didn't tell the guy to put your club back in your bag. That would be a healthy reaction. Either don't let it bother you or simply say, that is my possession and you didn't ask to handle it, please put it back in my bag. The problem with that is that you have to know it as your truth to pull it off i.e. say it like you mean it, that you expect your request to be heeded and a sincere apology and if met with derision or mock sincerity you are willing to call that out as well and have genuine conflict.

[jholz]

> @"Matt J" said:

> I generally follow said rule. I wouldn't pull a stranger's club out of his bag, mostly out of fear that I would knock the bag over or somehow damage a club, and I appreciate that some people are peculiar about their belongings. That being said, if this same thing happened to me I wouldn't care and I'm currently playing Miuras. Even if you extrapolate worst case scenario and he did accidentally knock my bag over and all the clubs bounced on the concrete I don't think I'd be bothered. All stuff is transient and a deep rooted connection to physical possessions is unhealthy. Your mental health is not my concern but it should be yours. As is the answer to most things on this forum, either let it go or say something. Your "stink eye" is passive aggressive and you started this thread out of shame that you didn't tell the guy to put your club back in your bag. That would be a healthy reaction. Either don't let it bother you or simply say, that is my possession and you didn't ask to handle it, please put it back in my bag. The problem with that is that you have to know it as your truth to pull it off i.e. say it like you mean it, that you expect your request to be heeded and a sincere apology and if met with derision or mock sincerity you are willing to call that out as well and have genuine conflict.

 

I was with you up until the "All stuff is transient and a deep rooted connection to physical possessions is unhealthy" statement. It's all pretty much crazy town from there, however.

 

Just one person's opinion.

 

The Master's icon avatar does add a touch of class, however. Can't deny that.

[TheCityGame]

Speaking of avatar's, I find it hilarious that a person with an "om" symbol would write the following. . .

 

_For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously._

 

"I'm trying to be one with the universe, but, you, guy on a golf driving range, who I actually recognize. . .you're a stranger and don't touch my stuff that got stamped out in some overseas factory that I'm smashing into hard plastic and dirt."

 

 

[jholz]

> @TheCityGame said:

> Speaking of avatar's, I find it hilarious that a person with an "om" symbol would write the following. . .

>

> _For me, I tend to define people with whom I have had "no or limited contact" as "virtual strangers." Under that definition, my extensive experience with people and human nature have given me ample evidence to support the idea that I need to be "reasonably" suspicious of anyone that I define under those terms - regardless of position, what I have heard about them, etc, etc, etc. Until I have direct experience with a person, I am going to be "reasonably" suspicious. As one gets to know people better, that level of suspicion will change obviously._

>

> "I'm trying to be one with the universe, but, you, guy on a golf driving range, who I actually recognize. . .you're a stranger and don't touch my stuff that got stamped out in some overseas factory that I'm smashing into hard plastic and dirt."

>

>

 

Being one with the universe doesn't mean that you have to be frickin' moron. Which is how I would classify anyone who wasn't "reasonably" suspicious of "virtual strangers" or individuals with whom they have had "no or limited contact." We could, of course, argue about the definition of "reasonably" all day long. I imagine your definition isn't that much different than mine.

 

Additionally, yoga shares the religious/philosophic roots of Buddhism, which is deeply rooted in the development of empathy for others. Because of my empathy for the feelings of the OP and the wide swath of humanity he represents, I wouldn't touch his clubs, or anyone's clubs, without asking. This is a sign of my respect and appreciation of them as a fellow human beings.

 

The om also happens to represent the state of mental centeredness that I try to achieve while bashing my Chinese manufactured play sticks into the earth. Not an adherence to any faith or practice. I have done some yoga with my wife before, and it did improve my flexibility.

 

So you see, it isn't contradictory at all.

[TheCityGame]

Your default position towards people is suspicion.

 

I'd rather be wrong about people more often -- even though it seems rare that I am -- and proceed through the world with a default position of trust. The energy you put out there tends to come back.

 

 

[Matt J]

@jholz - your use of the lotus and om is a classic example of cultural appropriation. Even better, you, the self-proclaimed master of civil debate, call me "crazy" for posting an exact tenant of the set of religious beliefs that you have appropriated. Back when I studied rhetoric at university they called that an "ad hominem attack." Click on this link if you dare to confront your hypocrisy:

https://teachingsofthebuddha.com/lessons-on-materialism/

 

Going to a yoga class or two and understanding yourself as attempting buddhism during your golf games is in my opinion entirely contradictory to using popular imagery of the world's fifth largest religious faith as your online "avatar."

 

It seems that you in fact think that Buddhism is "crazy"? And you are entirely incorrect in your assumption that "being one with the universe" is not in strict opposition to your very western view of "moronic." As a man who has argued intensely in this very thread for more precise use of language yours is at best puerile.

[jholz]

> @TheCityGame said:

> Your default position towards people is suspicion.

>

> I'd rather be wrong about people more often -- even though it seems rare that I am -- and proceed through the world with a default position of trust. The energy you put out there tends to come back.

>

>

 

"Reasonable" suspicion. Again, one could debate what is reasonable all day long. Would you give a complete stranger the keys to your house? If not, then you possess a level of suspicion concerning strangers. If so, you are far more trusting than I.

 

Either way, you have the right to determine your own place on the spectrum.

[jholz]

> @"Matt J" said:

> @jholz - your use of the lotus and om is a classic example of cultural appropriation. Even better, you, the self-proclaimed master of civil debate, call me "crazy" for posting an exact tenant of the set of religious beliefs that you have appropriated. Back when I studied rhetoric at university they called that an "ad hominem attack." Click on this link if you dare to confront your hypocrisy:

> https://teachingsofthebuddha.com/lessons-on-materialism/

>

> Going to a yoga class or two and understanding yourself as attempting buddhism during your golf games is in my opinion entirely contradictory to using popular imagery of the world's fifth largest religious faith as your online "avatar."

>

> It seems that you in fact think that Buddhism is "crazy"? And you are entirely incorrect in your assumption that "being one with the universe" is not in strict opposition to your very western view of "moronic." As a man who has argued intensely in this very thread for more precise use of language yours is at best puerile.

 

First, please allow me to apologize. It is not my intent to offend, and I am sorry. I, as you correctly state, like to debate and I engage in that practice with vigor. It can, at times, lead to situations like this. Again, I am sorry for this tendency in myself and my desire to practice this on a golf forum. I do try to suppress it to the best of my ability.

 

Additionally, you do, perhaps, have a point concerning my oversimplification of an extremely rich and complex religious and cultural system when it comes to Buddhism. As I said, I am not an adherent of that faith. I am, however, a great appreciator of the story of Siddhartha Gautama and many of the principles that it contains. It is, truly, an apex of beauty and wonderment within human history. I always do my best to treat the faith and its practitioners in a way that shows my respect for the traditions, people, and beliefs of that faith. Sometimes, it may be argued, I fail to do so.

 

As a result, you may also have a point with the cultural appropriation argument. Some people may interpret my use of the om symbol, particularly in such a trivial context as golf, as a lack of respect. For that, I am also willing to apologize. If I found that it offended people, I would be happy to change it.

 

I also wasn't taking a jab at your avatar. I wrote what I meant, and I meant what I wrote. Straight up, no subterfuge. The Master's icon avatar does, indeed, add a touch of class to your posts. I was trying to give you a compliment, and I am sorry that I failed to communicate that effectively.

 

Finally, and I think you will find this is true, I was not utilizing an "ad hominum" attack. I was providing a judgement of ideas, and I do tend to be frank.

 

Having said that, I could have been more effective and perhaps even more sensitive in how I presented my judgement. I appreciate your viewpoint on that issue and am constantly trying to come up with better ways to engage people in discussion. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do, sincerely, appreciate it.

 

 

[Matt J]

No harm, no foul. I would encourage you think about why these ideas borrowed from Buddhism work on the golf course but don't work in life?

 

It's all just stuff. People very much outweigh stuff in my mind. I do agree that there is an element of "lack of respect" in a guy picking up your club that's why I wrote it would be unlikely I would do it, but I also think it may be his way of trying to get to know you. I've lived on three continents and befriended, loved, worked with, laughed, cried, etc. with folks from all over the globe. Some people don't share the same sentiment about the importance of property and in my mind I wouldn't lose the opportunity to make a friend over being butthurt that they touched my golf club. To each their own.

[jholz]

> @"Matt J" said:

> No harm, no foul. I would encourage you think about why these ideas borrowed from Buddhism work on the golf course but don't work in life?

>

> It's all just stuff. People very much outweigh stuff in my mind. I do agree that there is an element of "lack of respect" in a guy picking up your club that's why I wrote it would be unlikely I would do it, but I also think it may be his way of trying to get to know you. I've lived on three continents and befriended, loved, worked with, laughed, cried, etc. with folks from all over the globe. Some people don't share the same sentiment about the importance of property and in my mind I wouldn't lose the opportunity to make a friend over being butthurt that they touched my golf club. To each their own.>

 

Thank you, once again, for your response. The question you pose is an interesting one. The answer, at least in my mind, is the fact that Buddhism is not necessarily socially focused. It bypasses questions concerning society. It is focused on the individual. This is why monasticism has always been a huge tenet of the faith. I know that I am really oversimplifying, and there are many successful ways to integrate Buddhism into social contexts, but this underlying aspect of the faith is tough to deny.

 

Although I have lived, worked, and studied around the world as well, I am still, very much, a creature of western culture. On a certain level, I cannot help but view this kind of spiritual path as one that is inherently selfish. Within its acceptance of "things as they are," I cannot help but notice that it overlooks grave injustices and places where the world might be meaningfully improved. I want to address those injustices and make those improvements. I try to temper that impulse with the principles of Buddhism, and this ideally helps me to make better decisions concerning what I can change, what I should change, and what I should accept or leave alone.

 

Finally, and just to make it clear, the problem that I had with your original post on the "touching another person's club" topic was the fact that you seemed to be advocating human conflict. You felt that the OP was a _colloquial expression for a cat_ (if you catch the reference) for not confronting the Pro about touching his clubs. You also suggested that he was bitter for not doing what he knew he should have done.

 

Because of those statements, and others in the post, you seemed (to me) to be arguing for human conflict - essentially saying that the OP should have called out the club Pro, in public. While things might be different in different countries or cultures, in America, that's going to be a tough conversation. No matter how you might word the "please don't touch my clubs" statement, you run a real risk of offending the club Pro. There is going to be tension. You might even get someone yelling back at you.

 

To me, suggesting this as the ideal solution is a problematic proposition anyway you slice it. Ideally, I would like to live in a society where those kinds of human conflict and the likelihood of them occurring are diminished, not sought after.

 

Now if you pulled the club Pro aside, and had a nice quiet little chat with him about the situation in private, you would cut down on the likelihood of conflict. Indeed, that approach might have been a great learning experience for the guy.

 

But, you know what, the OP just wanted to hit some golf balls. He should be allowed to do that without the responsibility of fathering/mothering/otherwise-ing the darn club Pro.

 

So, once again, I personally am forced into a position where the only best option - within contemporary American culture - is to leave the darn clubs alone.

 

P.S. I really hate the profanity filter.

[Matt J]

Your analysis is correct. I view life largely as containing principles worth having an outright conflict over (very few) and things I let go. This is a case that I would have let it go. But, as I mentioned, I'm not very materialistic. If it perturbed me enough to quiz the general public on a golf forum then I would have simply explained to the club pro that I am rather protective of my stuff and would rather he did not handle it without my permission. Perhaps a quiet conversation would have been the ideal solution, but I think many of us have lost the ability to clearly communicate how we feel especially under this type of "social duress." If you feel you are in the right, then speak up. Either you or they will change the way you feel about the situation. I'm not a big guy, I'm not a bully, but I would certainly tell a stranger on the range if I didn't like the way they were behaving if warranted. If a conflict of sorts ensues, then so be it. It would not be my first nor likely my last.

[LeoLeo99]

Lots of verbosity in this thread. No reason to get all philosophical over golf clubs and create strawman arguments.

 

[LeoLeo99]

> @"Matt J" said:

> Your analysis is correct. I view life largely as containing principles worth having an outright conflict over (very few) and things I let go. This is a case that I would have let it go. But, as I mentioned, I'm not very materialistic. If it perturbed me enough to quiz the general public on a golf forum then I would have simply explained to the club pro that I am rather protective of my stuff and would rather he did not handle it without my permission. Perhaps a quiet conversation would have been the ideal solution, but I think many of us have lost the ability to clearly communicate how we feel especially under this type of "social duress." If you feel you are in the right, then speak up. Either you or they will change the way you feel about the situation. I'm not a big guy, I'm not a bully, but I would certainly tell a stranger on the range if I didn't like the way they were behaving if warranted. If a conflict of sorts ensues, then so be it. It would not be my first nor likely my last.

 

We're all taught to avoid conflict.

[Matt J]

Sure, conflict should be used sparingly. If you default to conflict then you are a bully. But, reread the OP. He was eaten up inside but still making small talk, then he came here for validation. As I said I have nothing to gain here. I'm just identifying the stink eye and curt small talk as being passive aggressive and think the OP might have been more satisfied with the interaction had he stopped and addressed his grievance. There is no exact rule that governs these types of interactions. Perhaps the new Club pro was doing it to assert his dominance? Who knows? If you don't stop and address it, you never know.

[IcemanYVR]

Don’t touch my clubs, I don’t screw your wife. Moral; they’re both sacred.

[Under2hours]

What a waste of 3 pages & counting...... He touched my clubs......

Heck i leave my clubs to be cleaned & put away & who knows what else they're doing with them....

I may not sleep tonight.....

[serpriv]

If I was interested I would ask for permission. That is polite. I had someone do that to my baby blades before and I STRAIGHT UP CURB STOMPED HIM! After that moment I had it in for him. I birdied the following 17 holes and shot a 55 and my name is Kim Jong il.

[hybrid25]

> @IcemanYVR said:

> Don’t touch my clubs, I don’t **** your wife. Moral; they’re both sacred.

 

What a great analogy, you took the words right out of my mouth. Not.

Wife = golf clubs?

[LeoLeo99]

> @hybrid25 said:

> > @IcemanYVR said:

> > Don’t touch my clubs, I don’t **** your wife. Moral; they’re both sacred.

>

> What a great analogy, you took the words right out of my mouth. Not.

> Wife = golf clubs?

 

Lol, touching clubs correlates to fornicating with wife. Seems a bit unequal but he must really love his golf clubs.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @"Matt J" said:

> I generally follow said rule. I wouldn't pull a stranger's club out of his bag, mostly out of fear that I would knock the bag over or somehow damage a club, and I appreciate that some people are peculiar about their belongings. That being said, if this same thing happened to me I wouldn't care and I'm currently playing Miuras. Even if you extrapolate worst case scenario and he did accidentally knock my bag over and all the clubs bounced on the concrete I don't think I'd be bothered. All stuff is transient and a deep rooted connection to physical possessions is unhealthy. Your mental health is not my concern but it should be yours. As is the answer to most things on this forum, either let it go or say something. Your "stink eye" is passive aggressive and you started this thread out of shame that you didn't tell the guy to put your club back in your bag. That would be a healthy reaction. Either don't let it bother you or simply say, that is my possession and you didn't ask to handle it, please put it back in my bag. The problem with that is that you have to know it as your truth to pull it off i.e. say it like you mean it, that you expect your request to be heeded and a sincere apology and if met with derision or mock sincerity you are willing to call that out as well and have genuine conflict.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. The stink eye vs the F off bud that we want to give.

 

The issue there with your advise and/or diagnosis is that you forget the way society works now.

 

You can’t very well throw out verbal threats or commands anymore. Why ? What if that person calls that bluff ? You can’t plant him on his backside without felony assault changes anymore. 40 years ago it was a simple assault charge and a small fine. And People remained more in check.

 

So no. You cannot risk escalating the situation to a level where you can lose more than it’s worth. You have to just give the eye and take it. That’s todays world. And the inconsiderate among us prosper off of it.