I hadn't intended to reply (or even read) any of this but after several phone calls and emails decided to clarify my remarks.
First of all, I consider it disingenuous for someone to be a 'nice guy' in person and an ahole on the internet. That just means he/she is a phony.
Second of all, there is no need to descend to personal insults in order to 'make a good thread'. That just means the initiator lacks the mental ability to write in coherent sentences and pose a question in which people will have interest.
Third, there is no need to start a thread just for the purpose of slamming anyone who responds in a way that could be contrary to the initiator's opinion. That doesn't breed good dialog, it just shuts it down.
I've participated in online golf architecture discussion for almost 10 years now, have learned a great deal about golf architecture, even know what a Redan AND a Biarritz are (and saw one of each today on a course I played for the first time) and have made numerous friends and acquaintances that share a common interest, but have no interest in participating in a group where the above is not only tolerated but encouraged. So Ran is welcome to give my spot to someone else if he so chooses.
A good friend today reminded me that GCA is a resource unlike no other in the world; Ran and everyone who participates in GCA should be proud of this. We should be less proud, however, about the personal insults, putdowns, and assorted darts thrown for the sake of 'good discussion'.
In response to my critic about whether I have started any important threads recently, all I can say is that when I have something to say, I post it, otherwise I keep my mouth shut. I may not have started very many threads, but I've most likely hosted more GCAers at my club than almost anyone on this site and take pride in knowing that I've done it out of friendship rather than any agenda for access to other courses.