European pair still in the frame
Sergio Garcia and Bernhard Langer were hanging tough during the final round of the Players Championship on Sunday.
In extremely strong winds that were wreaking havoc at Sawgrass, Garcia and Langer avoided any major trouble in the early going.
Americans Paul Goydos and Kenny Perry shared the lead at five under after six holes, while Garcia was breathing down their necks, one stroke behind.
American Briny Baird was three under after 10 holes with Langer two under after eight.
Garcia and Langer were seeking to become just the second European winner of the prestigious event, joining Sandy Lyle (1987).
In winds gusting to 40 mph, birdies were few and far between, with the average score approaching 75. Conditions would have been impossible if the greens had not been heavily watered overnight.
Garcia, easily the best player in the field from tee to green through the first three rounds, coped with the conditions superbly.
After a bogey at the first he settled down to run off a string of pars before sinking a 10-footer for birdie at the seventh.
Langer, at 50 seeking to become the oldest champion, had two birdies and two bogeys in eight holes, but that was enough to pick up ground on the leaders.
Overnight leader Goydos was scrappy early on with a couple of bogeys, but he stemmed the bleeding with a birdie at the fourth, where he sank an unlikely 50-footer.
Tags: garcia, sergio
Yes, let’s all sink to their level.
If you mean democrat voters… they already did the reminding, last election.If you mean democrat politicians, they don’t give a fuck.
That’s not an equation.Try “he who frames the issue is he who wins the debate,” or, “the one who frames the issue is the one who frames the debate.”
Nope. No equation sign (or an English equivalent, “is”/”are”/etc.) is necessary for a formula to be an equation. Remember high school chemistry class, when you balanced an equation? That equation had →, or possibly ↔, but not =.So, “framing the debate → WIN” is a valid cause-and-effect equation.
First of all, if you want to interpret “equation” technically, an equals sign IS necessary for a formula to be an equation. The reaction rules you saw in chemistry class are not equations: they don’t satisfy congruence laws for substitution, nor are they even equivalence relations in general. What they are is rewrite rules, or inequalities. (Oh and, TeX equations are not equations either.)Second, this is really about parallelism or apposition in English, not technical issues. “Equation” is obviously not used in a technical sense in the title, and I know that because I know what equality is in a technical sense (and you, BTW, clearly don’t).But it starts with an assertion that something is an equation, followed by a colon, so naturally then I expect to see something which somehow on the surface resembles an equation or an equivalence: A is B. At least some predicate or something with two obvious parts implying an identity.Instead I am confounded by the sequel, which is not only not an apparent equivalence, but also capitalizes “WINS”, which encourages me at first to attempt to equate “he who frames the issue” and “the debate”, which is wrong.If you think that sentence is OK as it is, you need to revisit a good English style manual.
They have it figured out. Their corporate masters are telling them to take a dive and they obey.
um, because dem politicians are not looking to frame the issue. When dems frame issues, it is about race and gender, and those issues have already been framed; in fact, crammed down america’s throat.Now all the issues are pure economic, and that is the GOP’s job to frame those issues. If the dems were to frame them in the way that Dems should, the overclass would oust any dem politician who did so. So they do not frame issues. Instead they try to WIN. Winning is all the dems have now.The overclass would not allow any issue oriented Dem to exist politically (unless that Dem is about race and gender and lifestyle issues–that’s OK by the overclass).so the gop pols frame issues, and the dems simply try to load up on character and competence issues. Dems don’t touch fundamental issues like the GOP does.
She starts with an assumption that the Dem candidates are against the war. I’m not really sure that this is the case.
Um… I didn’t think I was illiterate but I just don’t see where it says she swam the last 400m with the jellyfish stuck on her face?I read it as stinging her in the face at 400m from the finish, but not swimming with it the rest of the way.
Not that I’m advocating the use of framesets, but how come nobody ever asks this question: why don’t search engines index framesets better? All the smart people work at search engine companies; some of them are even AI gurus. Framesets have been around for, what, at least a decade now, right?
The Democrats miss this time and again.You do get occasional flashes of brilliance. Witness John Edwards’ recent use of the term Brownie when referring to any potential Bush appointee to the AG role: something to the effect of “We don’t want any more Brownies.”Tragically, all those Karl Rove tricks are just good marketing. Rove isn’t an Einstein. He only knows how to do one thing, but he’s obsessed himself into perfecting it with all the freakish fanaticism of a compensator trying to overcome a father’s abandonment and sexual outlandishness and an unaffectionate mother’s early suicide.As is the case with any warped freak of nature, ordinary people can learn a lot from him regarding the one subject he is an ace on: getting candidates elected.