Patrick,
First, it must be noted that you CAPITALIZED words in my post that were not capitalized to begin with. If you want to quote me, then do it properly. You put a "spin" on my words by doing that.
You call quoting you directly ..... spin on your words.
That's exactly what you typed, I capitalized them because AG Crockett either didn't read them carefully enough, or had forgotten the original post.
Again, those are your exact words, I didn't delete or insert any other words.[/color]
The first sentence in my original post gets to what I am trying to say, "Over the last couple days I have seen a few members of this site put a lot of stock into the thought that if you haven't played a vast majority of an architect's work than your opinion of that architect means squat." I then go on to say that I disagree with this form of thinking.
I know how to read, and I never said that it was necessary to play the "vast majority" of an architect's work. What I did say, since you choose to misquote or misrepresent my words, is, that playing 1 % , 2 % or 10 % is an inadequate data base by which to draw broad general conclusions about that architects's work, especially when it's voluminous and extends over fifty or sixty years.
In keeping with your thinking, one with little or no experience at playing an architect's work has equal weight with one who has played the VAST MAJORITY of the architect's work.
Does that sound logical, in any evaluative process ?[/color]
Discounting free thought is not democratic or a breeding ground of learning and expression. If you want to set forth your own agenda I suggest you create your own website to tell others how to think. You will have the ability to tell everyone they are wrong all you want because you set the rules. Since when did you decide what it takes to give an opinion on an architect? Why do you get to set the groundrules for what qualifies as a valid opinion?
You lack it, so I'll tell you, it's called Common Sense, which evidently isn't so common.
Are we now to understand that your opinion is, from a scientific point of view, that the study of one case or an extremely limited number of cases, qualifies the individual to draw broad, finite, accurate, general conclusions ?
Perhaps you should investigate clinical trials and studies in medicine to grasp the absurdity of your position.
Start with ClinicalTrials.gov and then see if you can comprehend the necessity for in depth, broad studies based upon a larger numbers of cases.[/color]
If you want to try to say that my intent of this thread was to discuss financial or elitist access in an absolute terms then you must have a guilty conscience.
Baloney, That's exactly what you said.
You typed it, not me.
You said it was all about access and funds.
Are you now going to deny what you wrote ?
Do I need to quote you again to remind you of what you said ?
[/color]
Sure, mentioning those factors have something to do one's ability to see courses but that isn't what this thread is about.
How would one know that ?
That's what you typed, and that's what you said it was about.
Perhaps you should have rephrased your opening remarks to more accurately reflect what you meant, because that's not what you said.[/color]
What it is about is that some individuals on GCA are trying to disqualify others opinions if they haven't seen as many courses as them of an individual architect based on that fact alone. I have never said that seeing more courses make you less informed, which you imply that I say. That is total bullshit and you know it. Go back and read the numerous times I have said that I agree that seeing more courses benefits an individual in drawing conclusions on an architect's body of work and overall style. Stop spinning my words to fit your agenda of browbeating others into submission of the dogma of Pat Mucci.
If one needs to reread posts and other threads, it's you.
I've maintained, consistently, and throughout my posts, that playing 1 %, 2 % or 10 % is an inadequate sampling from which to draw definitive general conclusions about an architects entire body of work, especially when the architect's work may have spanned 50-60 years.
You are the one who chose to reinterpret my words to suit your feeble attempts to couch this discussion in the context of access and funds, and to allege that I've disqualified the opinions of others.
Since you appear obtuse at best, I'll restate my position for the umpteenth time:
Playing 1 %, 2 % or 10 % of an architect's work is too narrow of a data base from which to form finite general conclusions regarding his entire body of work, especially when the architect's body of work spans 50-60 years.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with that statement ?[/color]
The point is simple, there is a growing problem of individuals trying to solidify their position and discount others opinions through senseless jabbering of how many courses they have played in comparison to others without discussing the courses themselves. It's ludicrous and ignorant.
Would you cite an example of that ?
Or were you objecting to Tom MacWood's questioning me about the number of CBM courses I've played ? [/color]
Patrick,
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You still dodge the intent of my post by spinning it into what you want it to mean.
Giving an opinion about a golf architect is not nuclear science. I don't need to go to ClinicalTrials.gov to find out how much "research" I need to do to form a qualified opinion on an architect's work. This isn't science, it is art to me. It is a craft, not an operation. If you think of golf course architecture as a science then I could see how you like the formulaic works of some of the modern wanna-bees.
When you CAPITALIZE my words you give the words a different tone, so just try quoting me instead of CAPITALIZING which makes it seem as if I am yellling those words. You should know what CAPITALIZING words means on an internet discussion group by now considering you have a billion posts on here.
You said...
"n keeping with your thinking, one with little or no experience at playing an architect's work has equal weight with one who has played the VAST MAJORITY of the architect's work.
Does that sound logical, in any evaluative process ?"
I have consistently said that I do think playing more courses CAN and MOST LIKELY will help one come to a more sound conclusion on an architect's work. WHat I have been saying repeatedly, is that I disagree with those that try to diminish a person's opinion based on the amounts of courses one has played alone. Why can you not get this? I have said it over and over.
You said...
"You lack it, so I'll tell you, it's called Common Sense, which evidently isn't so common.
Are we now to understand that your opinion is, from a scientific point of view, that the study of one case or an extremely limited number of cases, qualifies the individual to draw broad, finite, accurate, general conclusions ?
Perhaps you should investigate clinical trials and studies in medicine to grasp the absurdity of your position.
Start with ClinicalTrials.gov and then see if you can comprehend the necessity for in depth, broad studies based upon a larger numbers of cases."
Common sense? Wow, coming from someone that can't think outside of their own box is pretty comical. If it doesn't fit in your frame of thinking then it must be destroyed.
You said...
"You said it was all about access and funds.
Are you now going to deny what you wrote ?
Do I need to quote you again to remind you of what you said "
I challenge you to find where I said it was ALL about access and funds. Seriously, show me where I said that. You can't, because I never said it was ALL about access and funds. I said that it plays a part in one's ability to see courses in their lifetime, I never said this topic was ALL about it.
You said...
"Since you appear obtuse at best, I'll restate my position for the umpteenth time:
Playing 1 %, 2 % or 10 % of an architect's work is too narrow of a data base from which to form finite general conclusions regarding his entire body of work, especially when the architect's body of work spans 50-60 years.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with that statement ?"
Obtuse? Wow, this is a lot of name calling for an adult with "common sense".
I DISAGREE with that statement. It is not too narrow if one has WALKED or SEEN, or WATCHED a golf course in person as well. I also consider if they have studied the writings and opinions of experts of their work. These are aso factors. So it depends on the individual. That is why I do not choose to publicly shame people for not playing as many courses as I have. Maybe, just maybe, they might notice something or learn something from a discourse that isn't seeped in forcefeeding agendas that you and other spew at them.
You didn't ask any questions I posed in my last post, nor do you answer many other people's post on this topic. You want to do all the questioning and seek to destroy and spin people's opinions that don't jive with your line of thought because it obviously makes you uncomfortable. I personally have had enough of it and will do my best to hold my tongue out of fear of joining your namecalling fiasco. I have gone down this road with you before and it's all too obvious that you are still as closed minded about things as in the past.
Jeff F.