Pat,
Obviously you can't read. I NEVER said I played Augusta, nor did I imply I played there, so go screw on your "being outed as a phony" comment, you are way off base, as usual!
1. Regarding "intimate views". I am the one who played there 3 days in a row. I am not the one who made the quote based on a blimp shot. Quite frankly, I still stick to my guns in saying if HE thought it was ugly from a blimp shot, thats HIS choice, not yours.
2. The "discovery process" as you quote has zero to do with a persons feelings, he hates the look, no amount of discovery makes him wrong, jesus, get with it Pat. And since when does a "discussion" have to have a "discovery process?" This is a freaking discussion board about golf architecture, NOT a court of law. Maybe you need to get back into the law game so you can have all the "discovery processes" your little heart desires and likewise, spend less time on this site, therefore saving us all your mindless BS.
4. I can make the statement that the sand at Augusta is "fluffy" It's my opinion you fool! No, I have never played there, however I have been there many times, and my opinion is that sand is fluffy and thats all that counts.
5. How dare you say that I "deliberatley misrepresented"the sand at Augusta vs. MVGC. Again fool, those are my opinions or views. I am still entitled to having and expressing my opinion right? Or did we just re-draft the constitution and I wasn't aware of it?
6. Pat, I "get it" apparently though, my views aren't in alignment with yours therefore I am wrong? Grow the hell up.
7. I never said there was a "prescribed formula" for anything on a golf course, let alone bunkers specifically. I merely stated that the NEW bunkers are not in keeping with the OLD bunkers therefore I FEEL as if they are not original, nor do I think they are in keeping with the rest of the course. It's akin to having sharp edged bunkers with white sand ALL over a golf course, yet BAM, all of a sudden there is one stacked sod bunker. Looks out of place to me, again, pardon me for having an opinion.
8. Pat, regarding being a spokesmanb, no one apponted me, however, based on getting numerous email (private) from other members of this site in support of my position, as well as stating they are tired of your games also, I think it's safe to say I am noit the only one who feels that way? No, don't even ask for names nor copies of the emails. They are all private documents.
9. I have no lack of understanding that would make me feel as if I am "wrong" on the 3 items I presented as reasons for them being ugly. You say my reasons were proven wrong. When? Where and by Whom?
Pat, you are the king of the world. You are the best, you are never wrong on anything. Your views are what the rest of ours should be. We love you Pat!
Has that last paragraph made you happy? I hope so, because if thats all it takes to make you go away on this tired issue, I would be happy to have it carved in granite for you, just ask and it's done.
SJ McCarthy,
Here are the only things you need to ascertain to answer if I am qualified on THIS topic.
1. Does the person in question have a more intimate knowledge than me?
What intimate knowledge is acquired in 5 second views from a blimp at 3,000 feet ?[/color]
2. Does he think the new bunkers are "ugly"?
That single criteriron is too subjective to provide an intelligent analysis[/color]
THOSE and only those questions are germain to THIS thread. Anything else you ask is pere antagonisim.
Absolutely not, since when is the discovery process antagonism ?
Although, if you've never played Augusta and posture as if you have by saying that the sand in their bunkers is "fluffy", I can understand how you'd view being exposed as a phoney, as antagonism.[/color]
Whose opinions on the bunkers at # 18 at Muirfield would be more credible, those of a golfer who's played the golf course for three straight days, or those from a golfer who has never been to the golf course and only seen 5 second aerial shots from a blimp at 3,000 feet ?
It can actually be either.
No it can't. Unless intellectual honesty isn't your forte[/color]
The thread is titled "how ugly", not "how well built", not what kind of sand" not "what pit of sand did the sand come from" not "whats their depth" nor any other such thing. Therefore, my opinion on their beauty or lack thereof in this case is right on the money, regardless of what you say.
It's not about the title of a thread, it's about the substance of the thread. Go back and reread it. The thread dealt with playability on the ground, but perspectives of the bunker complex on # 18 were offered on the basis of 5 second aerial views of the bunkers from 3,000 feet. Hardly a prudent basis for judgiing their playability and appearance to the golfer's eye.[/color]
You did compare the bunker sand on the 18th hole fairway complext to the white fluffy sand at Augusta.
I used it as a reference, in regards to two VERY different types of bunkers.
But, you've never played the bunkers at Augusta[/color]
Yet, when I asked you if you had played Augusta, you remained silent on the issue, which would seem to indicate that you haven't played Augusta. But, rather then speculate, I'll ask you once again, when did you play Augusta ?
I will answer you YET AGAIN, when did I say I played Augusta?
You stated that the bunker sand at Augusta was "Fluffy". How could you make that judgement if you've never played them ? You can't unless you render an opinion TOTALLY ABSENT THE FACTS. Which is what you did.
You deliberately misrepresented the quality and playing characteristics of the bunker sand at Augusta, in an attempt to make a faulty comparison with the bunker sand at # 18 at Muirfield, hoping that would garner support for your position.[/b
With respect to Muirfield's bunkers, why would you expect their shape and depth to be consistent ? Are you advocating a cookie cutter approach to bunker design ?,
a pre-set formula for bunkers.
Of course not. However, when an overwhelming majority of bunkers on a course are of an average depth that does not vary more than a foot or two, then bam, you come along and see all of these "added" bunkers that are twice as deep as anything else, one has to ask, why not keep with the original concept of all other bunkers on the course?
You just don't get it.
Since when is there a pre-prescribed formula or pattern for bunker depth ?
Have you ever played Pine Valley ?
If yes, did you notice, on the 10th hole, the BAM effect you take exception to, it's there.
Have you ever played NGLA ?
If yes, did you notice, on the 7th hole, the BAM effect you take exception, it's there.
It's also important to understand that elvated nature of the footpad that the bunkers ara cut into, and drainage issues.
[/color]
I also indicated that new bunker sand, from the exact same pit or quarry, will play, feel and look differently then the same sand that has been in a bunker for a while. So, is it the newness of the sand, or is it, in your opinion, different sand on # 18 at Muirfield ?
It's diff sand in ALL of the "new" bunkers. Diff texture, look and feel, enough already Pat, I, like the rest of us here are tired of this thread and your antics.
Now you're telling us that you speak, and express the opinions of everyone else on this site ? When were you appointed as spokesman ? And by whom ?
Did you take a poll to ascertain if everyone else was tired of the thread and my antics 
I understand your reluctance to answer relavent questions.
Just say that you don't know the answers.
Did it ever occur to you, that new, unweathered sand has a different look, color and playing characteristics then the exact same sand that has been exposed to time and the elements ? And, that in a year or two, the sands will look similar, if not identical
Don't express and try to camoflage your lack of understanding by labeling questions that I ask you as distasteful.
After all, you listed the three reasons that you found the bunkers ugly, yet upon further scrutiny some of those reasons are inaccurate and invalid
You also attributed statement to me that I never made.
On some of them you acknowledged your mistakes, on others where I asked you to cite my statements, you failed to do so.
As you also failed to answer other relevant questions, yet, I answered all of your questions.
Since you threw down that gauntlet, I merely picked it up.
[/color]