Varner ruling.

[bladehunter]

It matters a great deal. That's why I mentioned it.

 

I'm not back to anything. That's what I've been saying

 

Why does it matter who gave it to him ? By RULE of course.

 

In your mind it doesn’t. Because all you are thinking is carried.

 

In my mind if the scorer carries it ( of his own decision ). Then at some point lays it into a persons hand other than the player and that player doesn’t know it , custody is transferred to the now person who assembles and brings a whole club to the player. The player doesn’t know where the person walks from with the club. The rule allows for “ other places “ as an origin for the club or component. If the agent walks up to the player and hands him a club to add to the bag , he has no way of knowing whether it followed him 12 holes or came in from the OB fence.

[nsxguy]

It matters a great deal. That's why I mentioned it.

 

I'm not back to anything. That's what I've been saying

 

Why does it matter who gave it to him ? By RULE of course.

 

In your mind it doesn't. Because all you are thinking is carried.

 

In my mind if the scorer carries it ( of his own decision ). Then at some point lays it into a persons hand other than the player and that player doesn't know it , custody is transferred to the now person who assembles and brings a whole club to the player. The player doesn't know where the person walks from with the club. The rule allows for " other places " as an origin for the club or component. If the agent walks up to the player and hands him a club to add to the bag , he has no way of knowing whether it followed him 12 holes or came in from the OB fence.

 

You keep typing a lot of words.

 

You said "we have is a referee saying the player and caddie are aware that it was carried"

 

The rule says "anyone" so the penalty for assembling a club with parts carried for the player is correct.

 

I'm done going around in circles with you over this.

 

You're (all) welcome. :hi:

[bladehunter]

Lol. You make up quotes , try to twist my words. I say the same thing 100 times. Now you’re done. ? Again. Ok.

 

I don’t mean to be harsh. I just don’t get why you can’t see what I’m saying.

 

If I may. I recall sawgrass saying he’d have a hard time penalizing him IF he didn’t know it was being carried. Even if sawgrass has changed his mind now ( i do not know ) that tells me that I’m not far enough off base to be talked to like I’m stupid.

[deadsolid...shank]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

 

You do realize that several people have been posing the same or similar question. So own it and call Newby, Sawgrass, Thinking Plus and BladeHunter stupid as well. And why don’t you stop making up things I’ve said. I’ve not once said one single interview was the truth. I’ve pointed out a slight discrepancy in two statements and asked questions relevant to that.

 

I fully realize we don’t and won’t know exactly what transpired. We’re questioning and speculating. I’m sorry it’s irritated you that I have asked numerous questions.

[Mr. Bean]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

 

So in short. You don't know. I don't know. But we should take the ruling as the best possible outcome because ...... the referees are never wrong ?

 

Ok

 

It seems to me that you are not keen on learning but insisting. Why?

[bladehunter]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

 

So in short. You don't know. I don't know. But we should take the ruling as the best possible outcome because ...... the referees are never wrong ?

 

Ok

 

It seems to me that you are not keen on learning but insisting. Why?

 

Lol. The very definition of learning to most humans is throwing things against the known “ wall “ or rules and seeing what sticks. Also known as experience.

 

If you are part of that wall by all means shoot it down.

 

But don’t give me “ I’m sure they know more than we “ to counter a series of questions on possiblities brought up. That’s just rediculous.

 

I agree that I do not know . I also agree that you do not know. Which is what I said. Why do we have to just accept it ? Why can’t we try to know ?

[nsxguy]

Lol. You make up quotes , try to twist my words. I say the same thing 100 times. Now you're done. ? Again. Ok.

 

I don't mean to be harsh. I just don't get why you can't see what I'm saying.

 

If I may. I recall sawgrass saying he'd have a hard time penalizing him IF he didn't know it was being carried. Even if sawgrass has changed his mind now ( i do not know ) that tells me that I'm not far enough off base to be talked to like I'm stupid.

 

Twist your words ?

 

I QUOTED your words. lol

[Mr. Bean]

Here you go Mr. Bean. Here is my post #72 that is being referenced. Not arguing with anybody, just posting in case you didn't see it. I added bolding to the last paragraph for reference. Some of the wording in the post may have been mis-quoted by the author, I have no idea. The interview took place in the middle of the round. This has been interpreted several ways. In fairness, it is confusing in many ways, and some issues with the posts integrity, whether it's Mr. Russel's words, or the authors, I have no idea.

 

I have no clue why you posted this just for me. I did read it at the time. What has been the problem in this thread is that some persons not knowing neither the Rules nor what happened has been keeping on to insist one single part of one single quote of a one single interview was the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

There is NO WAY anyone of us as not having been there with the player to know what REALLY happened and thus it is honestly stupid trying to make a point relying on pieces of something that are not facts. By this I do not mean you, turtle, but some other persons easily identifiable.

 

So in short. You don't know. I don't know. But we should take the ruling as the best possible outcome because ...... the referees are never wrong ?

 

Ok

 

It seems to me that you are not keen on learning but insisting. Why?

 

Lol. The very definition of learning to most humans is throwing things against the known " wall " or rules and seeing what sticks. Also known as experience.

 

If you are part of that wall by all means shoot it down.

 

But don't give me " I'm sure they know more than we " to counter a series of questions on possiblities brought up. That's just rediculous.

 

I agree that I do not know . I also agree that you do not know. Which is what I said. Why do we have to just accept it ? Why can't we try to know ?

 

Try to know what? The Rule? What really happened? What was the scorer's sister's name? What??

 

The one and only thing one can learn to know is which Rule is to be invoked and how. All the rest is sheer hearsay.

 

If I want to learn I choose the Rules instead of hearsay. How about you?

[HitEmTrue]

Lol. You make up quotes , try to twist my words. I say the same thing 100 times. Now you’re done. ? Again. Ok.

 

I don’t mean to be harsh. I just don’t get why you can’t see what I’m saying.

 

If I may. I recall sawgrass saying he’d have a hard time penalizing him IF he didn’t know it was being carried. Even if sawgrass has changed his mind now ( i do not know ) that tells me that I’m not far enough off base to be talked to like I’m stupid.

 

It seems like the player knew it was being carried by the scorer. Even if he learned that 10 seconds before he put he club together, that would be a breach.

 

I’m most bothered that the person speaking on behalf of the PGA has mischaracterized the rule. Is he a PGA referee?

 

( edit )

I’m not an expert on the rules. Never been a ref. Never had any rules training. My ramblings cannot be used as evidence that a rule is stupid, or confusing, because it’s more likely just me.

[bladehunter]

Mr bean -

 

What really happened and if that matches up with the rule. That’s exactly what the conjecture has been about

[deadsolid...shank]

It’s too bad nobody asked HV how it transpired. It wouldn’t change the outcome since the rule was violated, but it would be nice to know how the club, or the parts actually got into his hands. That might put to rest the question of whether he knew or not. At least it would fill in a couple of blanks.

[Newby]

 

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

 

What is the difference between 'carrying for' and bringing to' ?

 

Was the scorer in close contact with the player all the time or did catch up with the player at the same time a the head was delivered?

[nsxguy]

And in the end the marker GAVE the shaft to Varner. How could anyone say the marker WASN'T carrying it "for" Varner ?

 

What is the difference between 'carrying for' and bringing to' ?

 

Was the scorer in close contact with the player all the time or did catch up with the player at the same time a the head was delivered?

 

See post 317. I'm too tired of this stuff to repeat it.

 

Every marker/scorer I've seen "travels" with his group. If that's NOT the case here I take everything back.

[Newby]

It's not a new Rule, it's been in place since at least 2012.

 

The words are different.

 

4-4a/15(3) Provided the components were not being carried by or for the player on the course at the time that the replacement club or additional club was requested by the player, there is no penalty under ............

 

Is it reasonable to assume the player made his request on the 1st tee?

[bladehunter]

It's not a new Rule, it's been in place since at least 2012.

 

The words are different.

 

4-4a/15(3) Provided the components were not being carried by or for the player on the course at the time that the replacement club or additional club was requested by the player, there is no penalty under ............

 

Is it reasonable to assume the player made his request on the 1st tee?

 

I believe it was before the 1st tee.

[Newby]

Every marker/scorer I've seen "travels" with his group. If that's NOT the case here I take everything back.

 

Are you sure this person was the player's marker. Earlier reports suggest he was simply a walking scorer tasked with keeping the score for outside parties. Such people do not always stick with the player as there is often more than one per group.

 

"His agent brought the clubhead to the course and a walking scorer brought the shaft. ....."

 

But just to make it clear, I am not saying the ref was wrong, only that we haven't necessarily got the full details nor a clear explanation of the meaning of 'carry for' as opposed to 'brought to'. On the assumption he is right I would like to know why.

[bladehunter]

Guys. I’m sorry for those that somehow I’ve obviously offended.

 

I’m not sure why these things cannot be talked about without people either taking things personally. Or resulting to personal attacks. Sometimes these things are way into the weeds. But this one is worthy of question , and yet questioning it is resisted ? Why ? Where is the harm ?

 

Nowhere did I or anyone else type “ he mr bean , hey nsx. You guys are idiots , you’re opinions are crap “. But that’s the exact response that’s being given.

 

That’s me saying I don’t know what the disconnect is.

[KevCarter]

What we know.

 

Varner tried to do the right thing leaving the shaft on the first tee.

The walking scoreboard bearer picked it up and carried it in an attempt to help.

Somebody brought a new head. From the parking lot for assembly to the shaft.

The article written with everything we have to go by was confusing with errors.

We all have a different take on the final paragraph of the article, and none of us know anything for sure, other than the rule itself.

 

What we don’t know.

 

Where on the course the head was delivered

Who the head and shaft were given to for assembly

Whether it was before or after the assembled club was given to Varner that he found out the sign bearer was carrying the shaft.

Whether Varner and the Referee had any contact after their discussion before the round.

 

Guys, please correct any errors or misconceptions on my part. My apologies for reading that paragraph literally, and posting it multiple times without understanding the issues Shank and several others had with it. It took a day for me to understand and get them through my thick skull.

 

MY OPINION. I trust Mr. Russell got it right, and very poor wording in the article, whether the came from the writer or Mr. Russel. Like everyone else, I hope someone is able to clear this up, and explain it further so we have a better chance of ruling on this in the future, not that this crazy series of events will ever occur again.

 

[bladehunter]

Pretty much spot on ^

[KevCarter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they’re evil. ???

[bladehunter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they’re evil. ???

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I’m evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I’m not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we’d all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That’s all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

The name calling then asking same question 100 times without paying attention to the answer , which absolutely happens to both sides each page is what sent this off the rails.

[deadsolid...shank]

What we know.

 

Varner tried to do the right thing leaving the shaft on the first tee.

The walking scoreboard bearer picked it up and carried it in an attempt to help.

Somebody brought a new head. From the parking lot for assembly to the shaft.

The article written with everything we have to go by was confusing with errors.

We all have a different take on the final paragraph of the article, and none of us know anything for sure, other than the rule itself.

 

What we don’t know.

 

Where on the course the head was delivered

Who the head and shaft were given to for assembly

Whether it was before or after the assembled club was given to Varner that he found out the sign bearer was carrying the shaft.

Whether Varner and the Referee had any contact after their discussion before the round.

 

Guys, please correct any errors or misconceptions on my part. My apologies for reading that paragraph literally, and posting it multiple times without understanding the issues Shank and several others had with it. It took a day for me to understand and get them through my thick skull.

 

MY OPINION. I trust Mr. Russell got it right, and very poor wording in the article, whether the came from the writer or Mr. Russel. Like everyone else, I hope someone is able to clear this up, and explain it further so we have a better chance of ruling on this in the future, not that this crazy series of events will ever occur again.

 

Spot on Fred.

[KevCarter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they're evil.

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I'm evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I'm not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we'd all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That's all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

I'm sorry, total joke, and I was laughing at both of us as I know I'm to trusting. I didn't mean to offend...

[KevCarter]

What we know.

 

Varner tried to do the right thing leaving the shaft on the first tee.

The walking scoreboard bearer picked it up and carried it in an attempt to help.

Somebody brought a new head. From the parking lot for assembly to the shaft.

The article written with everything we have to go by was confusing with errors.

We all have a different take on the final paragraph of the article, and none of us know anything for sure, other than the rule itself.

 

What we don’t know.

 

Where on the course the head was delivered

Who the head and shaft were given to for assembly

Whether it was before or after the assembled club was given to Varner that he found out the sign bearer was carrying the shaft.

Whether Varner and the Referee had any contact after their discussion before the round.

 

Guys, please correct any errors or misconceptions on my part. My apologies for reading that paragraph literally, and posting it multiple times without understanding the issues Shank and several others had with it. It took a day for me to understand and get them through my thick skull.

 

MY OPINION. I trust Mr. Russell got it right, and very poor wording in the article, whether the came from the writer or Mr. Russel. Like everyone else, I hope someone is able to clear this up, and explain it further so we have a better chance of ruling on this in the future, not that this crazy series of events will ever occur again.

 

Spot on Fred��.

 

Thank you Shank. Now let's hope we hear the whole story at some point so we can all learn from it...

[deadsolid...shank]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they're evil.

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I'm evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I'm not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we'd all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That's all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

I'm sorry, total joke, and I was laughing at both of us as I know I'm to trusting. I didn't mean to offend...

 

What’s bad is I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the rule itself, there were just questions as to if was quite as specific as it needs to be. Isn’t that how rules evolve? A situation comes up and if it creates a need for an adjustment, one is made?

 

It becomes kind of circular, because there are a multitude of complaints that the rules are too complicated. I’ve been one who has said that very thing. Then a situation like this comes up and it shows the reason why they are complicated. Because there are countless possible scenarios that they have to try and cover.

 

I’ll take a second look before saying anything again about being too complex.

[deadsolid...shank]

What we know.

 

Varner tried to do the right thing leaving the shaft on the first tee.

The walking scoreboard bearer picked it up and carried it in an attempt to help.

Somebody brought a new head. From the parking lot for assembly to the shaft.

The article written with everything we have to go by was confusing with errors.

We all have a different take on the final paragraph of the article, and none of us know anything for sure, other than the rule itself.

 

What we don’t know.

 

Where on the course the head was delivered

Who the head and shaft were given to for assembly

Whether it was before or after the assembled club was given to Varner that he found out the sign bearer was carrying the shaft.

Whether Varner and the Referee had any contact after their discussion before the round.

 

Guys, please correct any errors or misconceptions on my part. My apologies for reading that paragraph literally, and posting it multiple times without understanding the issues Shank and several others had with it. It took a day for me to understand and get them through my thick skull.

 

MY OPINION. I trust Mr. Russell got it right, and very poor wording in the article, whether the came from the writer or Mr. Russel. Like everyone else, I hope someone is able to clear this up, and explain it further so we have a better chance of ruling on this in the future, not that this crazy series of events will ever occur again.

 

Spot on Fred��.

 

Thank you Shank. Now let's hope we hear the whole story at some point so we can all learn from it...

 

I think we care more about it than HV does!

[KevCarter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they're evil. ������

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I'm evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I'm not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we'd all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That's all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

I'm sorry, total joke, and I was laughing at both of us as I know I'm to trusting. I didn't mean to offend...

 

What’s bad is I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the rule itself, there were just questions as to if was quite as specific as it needs to be. Isn’t that how rules evolve? A situation comes up and if it creates a need for an adjustment, one is made?

 

It becomes kind of circular, because there are a multitude of complaints that the rules are too complicated. I’ve been one who has said that very thing. Then a situation like this comes up and it shows the reason why they are complicated. Because there are countless possible scenarios that they have to try and cover.

 

I’ll take a second look before saying anything again about being too complex.

 

I'm just here to learn the rules as they are, and to keep up with them as they change. I need to know how to apply the rules as they exist. I'm happy to leave changing the world to you guys.

[bladehunter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they're evil. ������

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I'm evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I'm not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we'd all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That's all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

I'm sorry, total joke, and I was laughing at both of us as I know I'm to trusting. I didn't mean to offend...

 

No no. None taken. From anybody really

 

Just I think there’s a level of truth there. Questions aren’t appreciated unless they are in the form of meek , self demeaning tone.

 

Ironic that I’m finding the rules themselves less treacherous than the keepers can be.

 

When Shank asked the same question 10 times and was ignored , then called out for it when he didn’t stop asking .. sure I took exception. When I repsponded before he could to try t defuse the situation it resulted in a polite response , but not really the one I hoped for. It was still a doubling down instead of a defuse.

 

I’ve been here a while and know that if you should call anyone unreasonable it’s me. And when someone does I generally take a hard look and try to see all sides and at least shut up. Shank isn’t close to as hard headed as I.

 

All that doesn’t matter. I just wanted to illustrate why the attitude. It’s not the disagreement.... it’s the attitude that a disagreement can’t happen in this forums unless it between 2 folks with rules credentials. As if one section of the rules can’t be read in 10 min and an opinion formed . Anyway. Ramble over I guess.

 

[KevCarter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they're evil. ������

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I'm evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I'm not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we'd all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That's all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

I'm sorry, total joke, and I was laughing at both of us as I know I'm to trusting. I didn't mean to offend...

 

No no. None taken. From anybody really

 

Just I think there's a level of truth there. Questions aren't appreciated unless they are in the form of meek , self demeaning tone.

 

Ironic that I'm finding the rules themselves less treacherous than the keepers can be.

 

When Shank asked the same question 10 times and was ignored , then called out for it when he didn't stop asking .. sure I took exception. When I repsponded before he could to try t defuse the situation it resulted in a polite response , but not really the one I hoped for. It was still a doubling down instead of a defuse.

 

I've been here a while and know that if you should call anyone unreasonable it's me. And when someone does I generally take a hard look and try to see all sides and at least shut up. Shank isn't close to as hard headed as I.

 

All that doesn't matter. I just wanted to illustrate why the attitude. It's not the disagreement.... it's the attitude that a disagreement can't happen in this forums unless it between 2 folks with rules credentials. As if one section of the rules can't be read in 10 min and an opinion formed . Anyway. Ramble over I guess.

 

It's called frustration. I'm a 61 year old golf pro that has been in this business my entire life, and have a pretty solid resume as a professional, rules official, and player. I think you may stop the lecturing please.

[bladehunter]

Thank you Blade. I know you just want to understand what really happened, like we all do. I tend to take the rules guys word for stuff, and you tend to think they're evil. ������

 

I get why you say that. But honelsty. I think they think I'm evil. Or have a hidden agenda. I'm not going to jump out and go boo if a rule is found to have a hole. I think we'd all agree if a hole is found anywhere. It needs plugging. That's all.

 

Said 100 times. The rules for anything should stand up to question. No reason to rail against that.

 

I'm sorry, total joke, and I was laughing at both of us as I know I'm to trusting. I didn't mean to offend...

 

No no. None taken. From anybody really

 

Just I think there's a level of truth there. Questions aren't appreciated unless they are in the form of meek , self demeaning tone.

 

Ironic that I'm finding the rules themselves less treacherous than the keepers can be.

 

When Shank asked the same question 10 times and was ignored , then called out for it when he didn't stop asking .. sure I took exception. When I repsponded before he could to try t defuse the situation it resulted in a polite response , but not really the one I hoped for. It was still a doubling down instead of a defuse.

 

I've been here a while and know that if you should call anyone unreasonable it's me. And when someone does I generally take a hard look and try to see all sides and at least shut up. Shank isn't close to as hard headed as I.

 

All that doesn't matter. I just wanted to illustrate why the attitude. It's not the disagreement.... it's the attitude that a disagreement can't happen in this forums unless it between 2 folks with rules credentials. As if one section of the rules can't be read in 10 min and an opinion formed . Anyway. Ramble over I guess.

 

It's called frustration. I'm a 61 year old golf pro that has been in this business my entire life, and have a pretty solid resume as a professional, rules official, and player. I think you may stop the lecturing please.

 

Kev I’m not lecturing at you at all. That person knows who I’m talking about. I was simply talking to you. I thought.

 

Frustration isnt a mutually exclusive emotion.