I'll add to the comment above by saying that Ronnie O'Sullivan has the highest number of maximum breaks ("147s") in a tournament in the world, he has 12. considering the fact that he has played hundreds and hundred of matches, each consisting of 7-10 ish frames (the video shows one frame)= thousands of tournament frames, he has an extremely impressive 733 "century breaks" that is frames where he has scored more than 100 points.
Still, getting the maximum break he has only managed 12 times, which is the most anyone has ever managed.

This, coupled with the above description should give you an idea of how hard this is.

And then he goes and finishes a FINAL with it, a final, of course, brings out the nerves etc on a much higher scale than training in your basement does, which again makes it so much more difficult.

I am copy-pasting my previous comment from here:

For those totally unfamiliar with Snooker, let me explain a couple of points: Putting the black earns you 7 points, but you'll have to put one red before putting another.

So there really is only ONE way to get 147. you have to put all the balls in exactly this order. red,black,red,black.... and so on until all reds are down, then you HAVE to do yellow,green,brown,blue,pink and finish it of with black. ONLY that order. He could NOT, for instance, pop down the blue or something in the middle there, it HAS to be in this particular order.

Now, most of you have probably tried pool. And if you think pool is hard (like me) try just looking at a snooker table, its about twice as big, and the balls are smaller, and the holes are f¤%&&ing IMPOSSIBLE to put into. Not only are they smaller, but unlike a pool table, they have these rounded edges that makes it even harder.

So when I said this is hard, I really, really mean it. Only an elite few in the world can do this, and it doesnt happen often. Even in big star games like this reaching 100 is considered really, really good. The fact that O'sullivan does this one in 6 and a half minutes, and another one in 5 minutes and 20 seconds, makes him one of the coldest sons'o'bitches on the whole planet IMO, and its one of the greatest sports achievements ever.

Points for the various colors:

red-1

yellow-2
green-3
brown-4
blue-5
pink-6
black-7

Every color, except red, gets placed back on the table, for as long as there are reds left, so you COULD do red-blue,red-yellow, red-black and so on, except then you are "using up" reds to put low-scoring balls, so to make 147, you have to start with red-black,red-black etc.

When all the reds are down, the remaining balls, have to be done in the order of their points, from 2 to 7

Oh, and don't have a gun collection, but still can should I so choose, with very little effort.....From the country that brought the rest of the world Rock and Roll, tube amplifiers, Fender Stratocasters, Harley Davidsons, and Ronnie Barret's M82, FYVM!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Just like Ronnie sang, "be my little baby".

My apologies for missing your point, I sometimes tend towards the contentious. I think we have been arguing diagonally; of course religion (and faith) are the result of human traits, as is everything about human society. What I argue is that the unpleasant traits you rightly observe in other social institutions and widespread beliefs find a special form of propagation and protection from scrutiny in the supernatural aspect provided only by religious/supernatural belief. I still believe society would be better without religion, just as it would be without conspiracy theorists (often religious as well), state religion, and more generally the lack of critical thought. The reason religion is a worthy target when trying to effect social reform/progress is that, as I argue above, it ossifies and protects the negative traits you speak of, elevating them out of the sphere of human scrutiny/criticism by means of the supernatural argument.

>> ^jonny:

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.
And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)
I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.
Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.
>> ^hpqp:
You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

Nice straw men. I didn't write anything close to "without religion there can be no inspired art", nor have I ever heard or read anyone seriously suggest such a thing. Using that phrasing, my comment would be "without religion there can be no religiously inspired art," which should be self-evident.

And again you have assigned a position to me that does not follow from my comments. I am not apologizing for religion, nor do I think it doesn't deserve criticism and scrutiny. (On a side note, I think we may be using the word "religion" differently. I always make a distinction between faith (an individual belief) and religion (a collective belief). The distinction is analogous to the personal/public distinction in language.)

I haven't reduced religion to the sociocultural evils you mention. That is what you seem to have done, with only a dismissive acknowledgement of any good that may arise from it. I have repeatedly tried to show that religion is not the source of the evils you mention, but an expression of them. Even the teaching of nonsense and propagation of willful ignorance, which to me is one of the greatest sins, is hardly unique to religion or even inherent to it. Counterexamples - birthers and Taoism.

Again, let me point out that my comments arose from PostalBlowfish's comment that "there is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it," and his and your attempts to equate religion with certain fundamental human traits. This is really the basis of our disagreement - namely whether traits such tribalism and demagoguery are intrinsic to religion. To say that they are intrinsic implies that no religion can exist without those traits, and that is patently false. On the other hand, you don't need to look very hard to find those traits in just about any other social organization (politics, sports, business, etc.). This is what I keep trying to get across. None of the evils you attribute to religion are unique to it. Even if religion somehow magically disappeared tomorrow, all of those unpleasant traits would still be with humans. And this is the most important point I've been trying to make - don't let arguments over religion distract from the vastly more important task of helping humanity overcome these terrible tendencies inherent in all of us.

>> ^hpqp:

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.
As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.

You say you are not separating the inherent evil of superstitious/religious beliefs from the the social evils it perpetuates, but then you go and skirt my whole argument, reducing the negative aspect of religion (which you seem to reduce to "organised religion", suggesting it is the institution and not the fundamental beliefs that are at to be discussed) to... the sociocultural evils (creationism, pedophilia, etc.). My point remains made and unchallenged.

As for the whole "without religion there can be no inspired art", that is a myth organised religion (especially the RCC) likes to keep alive, and is doing a good job apparently. Great art celebrates nature, humankind, humankind's stories and mythos, illustrates its fears and desires, etc etc, all of which will go on after the belief in invisible sky-daddies dies away. Because the Church had money and power, they could buy the talent, that's all. I am sure some religious artists were inspired by their devotion, just like others are by drug trips, sex, fears, and of course by psychological disorders. That does not render religious belief a positive in society that needs to be preserved.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's good to want to reduce the symptoms, but futile if we do not also attack the disease behind them. So yes, there is a great need to argue against religion, which is what allows the sociocultural symptoms you mention to exist.
>> ^jonny:

@hpqp: The first problem here is that you are extrapolating my response into something it's not. PostalBlowfish commented that "There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it." My response to that has multiple points which apparently I haven't articulated very well. To add another though, it seems pretty clear that religious inspiration in art and music would be hard to duplicate without it, i.e., it is often the very nature of the supernatural belief that is inspirational. But to your point, that does not at all imply that I am "divorc[ing] the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined".
I'm not being naive or disingenuous - I've literally thought about this stuff for decades. In no way do I excuse any organized religion from its sanctioned evils (e.g., harboring pedophiles). For a long time I viewed religion as the source of many of the evils in society. But I've since come to realize that the evils directly attributable to religion are not intrinsic to religion, but to more fundamental aspects of human nature. And it is those fundamentally human traits that I think we, as a society, should be focused on rising above. Tribalism is one that I tend to focus on, and my point here is that religion is an expression of it, rather than a source of it.
Human's basic need to be tribal is kind of a big topic, so let me offer a more targeted, if tangential, example of what I mean. Consider the teaching of creationism in science classes. The most effective argument against it is that creationism is not science. Arguments against religious interference, separation of church and state, etc., only serve to muddy the waters and alienate the very people we would want to convince that creationism doesn't belong in science classes. There is no need to appeal to larger arguments against religion.

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Yogi:
Great show, miss Frankie, BBC are a bunch of cunts that don't understand comedy.

BBC understand comedy, let's see there's Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf, to name just several classic comedy shows known and admired around the world. Blackadder, Porridge, Absolutely Fabulous, Only Fools and Horses, Morecambe and Wise, One Foot in the Grave, The Two Ronnies, The Young Ones, Fry and Laurie, My Family, 'Allo 'Allo, Yes Minister, The Vicar of Dibley, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps, I could go on and on and on but I think I've established the trend... The BBC also spends a lot of money promoting new and established comedians performing at large venues like the Apollo, and also runs the BBC New Comedy Awards annual ceremony which is considered one of the highlights of the comedy calendar. Frankie is a gem and a fellow Scot so I'm biased in favour of him but let's not forget he left comedy behind of his own accord. Can't blame the BBC for that.
In fact if you're going to slag off the BBC the least you can do is come live over here for a year and pay your TV licence fee so a) you're contributing, and b) you actually have a leg to stand on if you're going to make ludicrous and offensive claims.


You're naming classic comedies that shaped the world...and do not apply in this discussion (The good ones, not the shit you listed). Just don't even bother making an argument next time if you're going to produce strawmen like this. Monty Python and Fawlty Towers are amazing...AND OLD! Really fucking old and were made at a time where the BBC wasn't run the way it's run now.

Frankie was constantly harassed and treated like shit on Mock the Week by it's Producers because they kept getting complaints from stupid people who think their opinion matters. Frankie was the funniest part of that fucking show, the BBC took him away, so YES they don't understand that saying offensive things is a comedians job. You don't have the right to not be offended.

I'm glad you're offended because you're fucking wrong. The BBC used to produce seriously funny shit...some of the most cherished shows ever. Now they produce crap, because it's an upside down pyramid of executives noting shows to death and killing the funny parts of others because some mother called in to complain.

You are whats wrong with humanity. You're a lowly wretch who defends morons who ruin things for the rest of us. Why don't you go work for NBC you evil monster.

>> ^Yogi:
Great show, miss Frankie, BBC are a bunch of cunts that don't understand comedy.


BBC understand comedy, let's see there's Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Red Dwarf, to name just several classic comedy shows known and admired around the world. Blackadder, Porridge, Absolutely Fabulous, Only Fools and Horses, Morecambe and Wise, One Foot in the Grave, The Two Ronnies, The Young Ones, Fry and Laurie, My Family, 'Allo 'Allo, Yes Minister, The Vicar of Dibley, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps, I could go on and on and on but I think I've established the trend... The BBC also spends a lot of money promoting new and established comedians performing at large venues like the Apollo, and also runs the BBC New Comedy Awards annual ceremony which is considered one of the highlights of the comedy calendar. Frankie is a gem and a fellow Scot so I'm biased in favour of him but let's not forget he left comedy behind of his own accord. Can't blame the BBC for that.

In fact if you're going to slag off the BBC the least you can do is come live over here for a year and pay your TV licence fee so a) you're contributing, and b) you actually have a leg to stand on if you're going to make ludicrous and offensive claims.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it.

I agree with much of your comment, but that opening statement is so broad and overreaching that I had to downvote it (and I almost never vote on comments).

Unless I am mistaken, I think you are referring to a very narrow definition of religion in making that claim. It is absurd otherwise. Religion, in the most general sense, is a collectively accepted doctrine of moral, philosophical, and spiritual belief. There is nothing inherently detrimental to such systems of belief, except perhaps the tendency towards tribalism. But it's worth noting that some religious doctrines explicitly warn against tribalism.

I think what you may be arguing against is demagoguery and tribalism, both of which are often attached to religion, but are not synonymous with it.

It is important to make this distinction because only by being careful with such words can we ever move those enthralled by the negative aspects of religious social control.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

lets try that again:
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Botswana-Music-Guitar-Ronnie-Happy-New-Year-Luie

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by enoch. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.