KBM,
Perhaps part of the problem on this site is that we read way too much into what people post, coupled with the apparent fact that we often view the game from extremely varied perspectives. Our contexts also seem to be all over the place- sometimes taking the standpoint of the best 1% of the players, and other times from that of the probably non-existent "average" golfer (who doesn't frequent this site).
Whether we like it or not, golf and golf architecture is all about tradition, convention, templates, formulas, symbols, etc. Even the most creative aspects of your profession are heavily regulated not only by these factors, but by consumer demand, and various government entities.
What is the expression: that there are 20 or so original holes and everything else is some sort of a derivation therefrom? Imitation being the best form of flattery, Raynor is hardly the only one who copied other holes, though perhaps he did so with a greater degree of engineering precision and much less pretense than others.
So, when you and others speak derisively about templates and being formulaic, you may wish to consider that much that is done in your profession involves just that and not a great deal of "thinking outside of the box". From what I've been able to see in my modest experience travelling, those courses I've enjoyed the most are not the ones which seek to be different, but those which were built with great sensitivity to the surroundings.
But back to my original post where I used the bunker on the left side of the fairway at Scarlet #2 as an example. I was not suggesting that all bunkers far away from the hole be flat and without a lip. I am not saying that the golfer should be able to hit a club to reach the green on every or even most occasions. My bigger point is really not too dissimaler than the objection to double hazards (e.g. a bunker protected on the green side by trees) sometimes discussed here. Given the distance of the hole, closeness of the hazard to the line of play, and the few alternatives off the tee, it is my opinion that this type of difficulut, punitive bunker takes away from the hole rather than enhances it.
As to computer aided design vs. field work, I would agree that holding everything else equal, more field work is better than less. On the other hand, I am sure that there are designers out there who could spend a full year on the site and do no better than others who may make the mandatory four or five site visits and do much of their work at their offices. I would tend to believe that if one has a very fine, trained eye, that he perhaps could do without the computer. I still have found little evidence to suggest that the ability of the architect to execute many of the shots he is designing for is not a significant factor on the quality of his work.
Finally, I agree with quite a bit of what you said on your last post. Until the last three sentences. I try to keep an open mind and learn from everyone, even guys like Moriarty and Naccarato. While MacKenzie is one of my architectural heroes, I acknowledge that like Hogan, what he wrote and actually did at times was not consistent. I put much more weight on the results and how I experience them (motives and intentions are not easily ascertained). And while I am an advocate of hand raking, preferably by the person who last used the bunker, in the absence of rakes, I would nonetheless smooth out my deep footprints. Particularly if it was you playing behind me.