Category: Fourre-tout

In last Sunday’s tournament there was an elephant in the room, or if you prefer an elephant on the field. It was an evidence impossible to overlook.

The tournament was promoted as “Select Mixed Triples’ meaning that you were free to select your partners. In this case, it could be a combination of 2-men/one woman, or 2-women/one man.

Naturally, you try to come up with the strongest formation possible, and Sonoma put forward a juggernaut of a team. Two high-caliber shooters and a legendary pointer. An almost unbeatable combination.
Every other team on the field looked weak in comparison. Badly armored Sherman vehicles facing a Tiger tank.
The victory of the Sonoma Team was an almost foregone conclusion.

Three timed-games were played before lunch, followed by elimination games in the afternoon.

When you play in a tournament, it is psychologically important to win (or at least hold your own) in the first game.
Unfortunately some team had to confront the Sonoma 3-headed monster on its first encounter and was badly mauled.
My team and I while doing fairly well on our two first games (13/7 and 11/13) faced the beast on our 3^rd game and were beaten to a pulp.
The rival shooters hit our balls 98% of the time (with “carreaux” to boot) and sent us packing with our tails between our legs.
But losing has one good redeeming quality: it keeps you humble.
Paradoxically speaking though, it is the winners who should remain humble.

When losing,

You got to choose between tightening your belt or losing your pants. Navjot Singh Sidhu

In a contest one naturally roots for the underdog and many spectators were cheering for one particular Marin team.
The “Yellow Jackets” (Wessel/Baron/Marcovecchio) did a great job and gave the Sonoma gang a run for their money.

In one memorable game, they managed to lead 7/0 but lost the encounter with a very honorable score of 9/13. Still, a great job! Congrats, you yellow rebels.
Interestingly enough, while seemingly invincible in the morning, the Sonoma shooters seemed to have lost their nerves in the afternoon and missed a number of crucial shots.
Nevertheless they played very well and fully deserved to win that tournament.

I noticed with pleasure the presence of Mark and Sandra Sirkey our newest members. I also noticed Carolina Jones amazing new look and Brigitte Moran’s fancy blue jersey.

The tournament contestants were:

1. Les Stones & Harry Helms & Nancy Jencks
2. Larry Cragg & Mark Shirkey & Sandra Shirkey
3. Charles Davantes & Herb Moran & Brigitte Moran
4. Mickey Coughlin & Holly Sammons & Peter Mathis
5. Henry Wessel & Noel Marcovecchio & Calvert Barron
6. Joe la Torre & Peggy Silversides & Rob Everett
7. Alain Efron & Francois Moser & Claudie Chourre
8. Carlos Couto & Beth Lysten & Carolina Jones

Final results:

1^st place: Mickey Coughlin & Holly Sammons & Peter Mathis $25 ea
2^nd place: Joe la Torre & Peggy Silversides & Rob Everett $16 ea
3^rd place: Les Stones & Harry Helms & Nancy Jencks $13 ea
4^th place: Henry Wessel & Noel Marcovecchio & Calvert Barron $10 ea

Alain

PS: To look at photos of this event and listen to the accompanying background music, turn your computer’s sound on, and click on the link “My Photos” located on the right side of this page. For best viewing, go Full Screen.

“Curiosity killed the cat” is a common saying among dull, unimaginative people.

I totally disagree with this ridiculous expression for everyone knows that a cat possesses nine lives, and (experience generating) curiosity is the quality that allowed a mouser to survive many hazardous situations unscathed.

Curiosity is good, even necessary in our troubled times.

“The curiosity of the human mind is essential if you want citizens who think rather than accept the first nonsense they come to.” Francois Englert

 Absolutely!

My mother was a kind of gullible soul who believed whatever her mother told her, and before that what her grandmother told her mother. She used to say “if it is printed in the newspaper, it must be true”.
Right! And Joseph Stalin was a great humanitarian!
If hopefully you have an independant streak in you, your parents’ beliefs should not automatically become yours.

I, unlike my mother, am a doubting Thomas. Before believing, I doubt. And I will doubt until I can find the proper answer.
I am curious, and if something does not jive, I want to know why.
When I read an article and when a name catches my fancy, I want to know more about that person. I always turn to various sources of the Internet to check the accuracy of what I just read.

Nowadays you absolutely must be curious!

Especially in this putrid political season, you cannot take at face value all the ridiculous, slanderous statements made by politicos or yellow journalists.
Before forming an opinion that you might regret (e.i Brexit), you need to scrutinize the available data.
And the Internet conveniently offers some fact-checking websites that specializes in debunking the outlandish statements made by political operatives.

Click on TechNorms to check the 6 following sites:

FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com,
OpenSecrets.org, Snopes.com,
TruthorFiction.com, HoaxSlayer.com

So before forwarding rumors and peculiar fabrications to your friends, do your homework and evaluate the truthfulness of what you just read.

“Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton asked why.” Bernard Baruch

Alain

People in general like to show off.

They like to display jewels, clothes, guns (let’s make America great again) or pretentious religious and political symbols.
For there is in all of us a dormant peacock striving to come out.

But a man well into his skin does not need any adornment. His word, his face, his demeanor are his bond.

Political or conspicuous religious symbols in particular can be lightening rods. They are likely to annoy or anger somebody who harbors different beliefs.
So why would one put to the fore such controversial emblems?
Why (knowing full well that it might offend somebody) proclaim that you are a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian or a gun proponent?

Why the need to advertise? Why the need to prolethyze? Why attempt to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another?
Bravado? Provocation? Ostentation? Shock value/

Probably all of them. Unremarkable people often need a crutch to reassure themselves.
I belong to a powerful sect, therefore I am. Without it I am nothing.

In France, there is a law (among their endless list of regulations) banning conspicuous religious symbols in primary and secondary schools.

 For once I stand with the French. Your beliefs are private and should remain private.

When I meet somebody wearing an ostentations religious or political symbol, I see this as a threat, an invasion of privacy.
I would feel much more relaxed if this person didn’t shove his convictions into my face.
Even though I love animals, I don’t wear a PETA label on my lapel.
Even though I dislike the Republican drift to the Extreme-Right, I don’t wear a tag saying “Hump Trump!”

If worship you must (I don’t) do it in the privacy of your own yurt.
I don’t need to know that you are holding Satanic Masses in your basement.
As long as you are not assembling explosive devices, I don’t care.
But again don’t force me to recognize that you are some intolerant prick. It will show soon enough.

As far as I concerned, all religious and political symbols should be banned. They don’t serve any useful purpose but to antagonize and set people against each other.

Alain