AMAZING! To explain how awesome this is, I repost my snooker comment here (my most popular comment ever actually.. )

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.

cf snooker>> ^westy:

The thing is its not realy calculable by a human , so its largely chance ,
you would have to ask him to take the same shot 50 or so times and then see how often it goes in the whole to see how much skill comes into it.
Im sure you have to be very good to get to a level where its possibale to get it in with this kind of shot in the first place , but what im saying is that there is good statistical probablity that all of the pro players would probably make this same shot with the same odds.

>> ^dag:

Unless you are going on a small handful of issues, I don't see how progressive types could form a coalition with the Libertarian minded. Just seem to be way too many fundamental philosophical issues.

The sad thing is, libertarians at least claim to be on the same side as liberals in terms of what issues we need to solve.

We both want to stop wars and shrink the military.

We both want to legalize drugs.

We both want to stop discriminatory practices.

We both want to help the poor.

We both want to defend the legal rights of people accused of crimes.

We both want to stop our massive expansion of incarceration.

We both want to defend the separation of church and state.

We both want to protect the environment.

We both want to stop corruption, public and private.

The problem seems to be that they've gotten snookered by a secular religion that says taxes and laws are the devil, and that fighting against them overrides all other considerations.

winston,
i think we can agree that we have differing philosophies.
that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.
1.in the 1800's a corporation was a temporary venture between different companies to achieve a common goal,the charter was only allowed if it was for the "common good".when the goal was achieved the corporation was dissolved i.e:the brooklyn bridge.
2.after the civil war a few creative lawyers used the newly written 14th amendment,installed to protect newly freed slaves rights,to create limited liability corporations that would not have to dissolve but rather flourish and have rights as a person.even though a corporation is not an actual person.
3.in the the 1960's (if i recall correctly) lawyers once again got creative and lobbied to have the "for the common good" removed from the corporate charter.which in essence took any morality out of the corporate charter leaving profit as it's sole impetus.
4.a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection.why?because the government is for the people and by the people (in theory at least) and with corporation no longer bound by law to do "common good" it is the last line of defense.
a.the reason i state this is because many people echo the "free market" line.what we have now is nothing close to a "free market".when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.
b.i use adam smith and milton friedman as examples to make my point.for both of these men were huge proponents of the free market but for both of these economists plans to work there needed to be an equal playing field.how can we have a free market when international conglomerates own our political leaders?they own the media so they control the message.

we are a republic.what makes us a democratic republic is our right to vote but if the message is controlled the vote will be slanted by that propaganda.the last thing our government,corporations and financial institutions want is an informed citizenry.

there are two more points i would like to make.
1.you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations.
ok.if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie"?
you my friend have been snookered into buying into a polemic paradigm that does not, in reality, exist.the message has permeated your views on people who may think or feel different than yourself.humanity is a far more diverse grouping than TWO ways of thinking,feeling,being.
2.i also saw that you put the responsibilty on the borrower.that in itself is not an entirely incorrect statement BUT according to the GOA it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.i could go into further details but there is plenty of information out there to back this statement up.

in summary:
corporations can,and do,much good but they can also do incredible amounts of damage.the way the system is set up it comes down to cost/ benefit every time and maybe that needs to be changed,but when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice.

on a personal note.winston,you sound like a pretty stand up guy but do not project your integrity onto a corporation.they would eliminate you in a heart beat if it profited them.also...dont be so quick to judge those who you do not know,understand or walked one inch in their shoes.life happens and sometimes it aint pretty.
i enjoy our conversations winston.
till next time...peace.

It's not 'braking' wind. It's 'breaking' wind, like the place where a wave collapses into surf, the first shot meant to break the balls in snooker and billiards, or time off during a shift, or a recess. To break wind.

No problem! I always remember him as the snooker presenter and then he went "mad". The one interesting thing I take from this is his awareness of making himself very different and exposing himself to immense ridicule. In a way that lends him a bit of credibility but then you hear more and more that just doesn't scan, thoughts that don't join together or make any kind of sense. I don't know whether to feel sorry for him or say good luck on what seems to be a fulfilling mission.

It's called artistic billiards. I play snooker. Never played carom billiards but my friend from Grenada is always telling me about it.

That's not snooker, that's pool.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Robert Baratheon anyone?




OH MY GOD! YOU BEAUTIFUL BASTARD!!

That was the best suggestion I've heard all day.

NO NO NO NO NO!

The BEST commentating on any snooker is by Murray Walker:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Murray-Walker-Commentates-on-Snooker

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Robert Baratheon anyone?


Yeah! And this kid to play Samwell Tarly.

>> ^spoco2:
Ahhh, I've loved Brian Blessed since Flash Gordon!


So THAT'S where I recognized him from. Thanks!

O'Sullivan is arguably the best Snooker player ever, here's him getting the maximum* score (a so-called 147 break) in the fastest and second fastest time ever, 5.20 and 6 and a half minutes.
http://www.videosift.com/video/MEGA-147-maximum-break-made-to-look-easy
http://www.videosift.com/video/Snooker-2nd-fastest-147-break-ever-Ronnie-OSullivan

*it is theoretically possible to get more points, if your opponent makes mistakes, it is theoretically endless, but for all practical purposes 147 is the best score, only a few people have ever been above it.

For those of you completely unfamiliar with the game of Snooker, I posted an explanation of how insanely, fantastically impressive this shit really is, Here, where you can see the SAME guy doing to worlds 2nd fastest 147 too.

Knowing how hard Snooker actually is... that's pretty un-fucking-believable. (Pardon my french)