[Mike Erdmann]

The truth here really lies somewhere in the middle of all of these arguments.  Dick does an excellent job of using the 1980 topo map to give an idea of what the site was pre-construction.  The problem I've got though is that some on this site are looking at MDugger's photos and coming away with the impression that those photos are of what the Sandpines site looked like pre-construction.  The Sandpines site absolutely looked nothing like those photos.  As Dick points out, it largely was a huge expanse of drifting sand.  There was essentially no beach grass or other vegetation stabilizing the dunes.  I don't know for sure, but I would suspect there were what is known as 'oblique dunes' which are constantly shifting thus preventing vegetation from growing.  My understanding is that they had huge problems at Sandpines during construction with blowing sand burying work that had been done.  Could the dunes have been stabilized to allow for a tremendously better course than what was built?  Probably.  But at what cost?  Did the construction budget allow for it?

Looking at MDugger's photos, one might think that the Sandpines site was similar to the ground that Bandon & Pacific Dunes were built on, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  MDugger's photos were clearly from somewhere in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area (you can tell that from the dune buggy tracks), but the Oregon Dunes Recreation Area is literally 60 to 70 miles long, and these photos could be as much as 10 miles north of Sandpines, or 50 miles south.  It would be helpful for MDugger to identify where they are from, if he knows.

Living less than two hours from Sandpines, I've spent lots and lots of time down on that area of the coast and know the area quite well, much better than people looking at a few photos and topos.  Let's have an intelligent debate about the merits of Sandpines, but we can't do that if people mistakenly think that Rees started with a site that looked like MDugger's photos.  I think Slag did an EXCELLENT job summarizing why Sandpines is a hugely disappointing golf course and I would agree with him completely.

[corey miller]

Pat-checked my statement and you are correct I wrote "not sure if some of these owners would know it when they see it".

It should read "not sure if some owners would know it when they see it".  Now do I still have to comment on course i have not seen and people i have not met?

It seems to me that Rees is saying that his design at sand pines was based on the philoshphy discussed, I am just wondering if this is true.  Also, many times people that make hiring decisions are not in a position or educated in the field enough to know the difference.

I know of a classic-era course that is undergoing a "upgrade" where the architect states how important it is to maintain the design integrity of the original designer and any straying from these principles should be done on his own original work.  I agree, in fact his "sales pitch" could have been written by Tom Paul.  However, the suggestions made do not in fact adhere to this and I do not believe the membership is "educated" enough to know.

Is'nt it possible this happens in original work also?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Do you like the way Mike Erdmann pummeled me.

Now here's a fellow who saw the pre-construction site and claims it looked nothing like the photos MDugger posted.
A fellow with first hand knowledge, the facts.

I too saw the ATC/ATV tracks and also saw on the topo the narrowness of the isthmus compared to the extensive land pictured in the photos.

MDuggers delay and reluctance in identifying the site where the pictures were taken reinforces my contention.
The photos were clearly misleading.

What do you say now Tom ?

I also indicated that I accepted Slag's assessment of the golf course.

Fact Patrol,

Mike Erdmann says the pictures are not remotely close to being of the site or immediate area, what do you say ?
Were you fooled too ?

Mike Erdmann,

Keep pummeling, I'm starting to enjoy it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Captain Pat
I commend you on going down with SS Sandpines (and going down on the SS Rees)!  Dispite the fact that no one who has seen it believes it is sea worthy (which goes back to the irony surrounding your lack of Rees credentials).

Now can we get back to talking about good architecture?

[Michael Dugger]

Pat....screw you.  I will take as long as I damn well please in responding to your questions.  Why don't you get pissed at Mike Erdmann for taking so long getting us the FACTS?

Some of us don't live on the computer, especially on the weekend and especially on Super Bowl Sunday.

'tis true the pictures are from the Oregon National Dunes Recreational area.

From all over the place....

Should I feel like I was misleading and 'tricky' in my little 'slide show'?  Some people understood what I was talking about.  Like I said, I can't control how people take things.

Maybe you should spend a moment or two contemplating how people take the things you say.

I'm not afraid of the facts.  It is good to know about 'oblique dunes' as described by Mr. Erdmann.

Pat.....
I'm sure you are going to think Mr. Erdmann's 'lesson' on oblique dunes is going to win you this argument.  

But while one man thinks it hard to establish turf on that property, another might find it very simple.  If you want to remain steadfast in your position, let's get the FACTS regarding how difficult it is to establish a golf course in those conditions.

And even if Sandpines isn't as bad as I say...this does not, expressly, imply that the article citing Rees as someone who 'discovers' golf holes is true.
The article stinks.  I think my 'slide show' has displayed how  impressionable we all can be; believing what we want to believe.  Everyone wants to think this is what Sandpines really looked like.  

Enough of the B.S. Journalism.
  

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

I'm not pissed at anybody,
Not Mike Erdmann for getting the facts, or you for trying to perpetrate a FRAUD.

You and others are annoyed at Rees for what you feel are misrepresentations in the article, and then you go and deliberately misrepresent to all of us on GCA what the site looked like.  You can't call the article B.S. Journalism when your guilty of deliberately doing the same thing you object to.
I think that was irresponsible and disengenuous of you, and contrary to the spirit of the site.

I'm disappointed in and for you.
I think you've severely damaged your credibility.
Your dislike of Rees was so strong that you compromised your integrity to misrepresent the facts.
I think you owe the site an apology, especially to those who championed your banner based on your presentation and allegations.

But, let's put this behind us.
Let's try to find out why the golf course turned out the way it did.

In my initial response to Tommy Naccarato I asked some questions relative to the golf course, the answers to which would help me understand what happened at this site.  

Fact Patrol & Fact Patrol checker,

Do you want to get out those dictionaries again, or are you wiling to concede that I was right and you were wrong.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, get the facts first,
check with me.  

Oh, I think a name change would be in order  

RJ Daley,

You too were fooled, as I was initially.

There's probably a lot more here than meets the eye.
I'd just like to find out as much as possible before rendering a final verdict.

I'm not so sure that you can stabilize those dunes so easily, even if you did have a large budget.

You may be able to grow grass on a cue ball, but it won't stand up to play and traffic.  If it was so easy to grow, protect and maintain grass, green superintendents around the country wouldn't get fired so frequently.  Let's not be so quick to dismiss the variables and the particulars indigenous to this site.

Tom MacWood,

If I hadn't challenged the photos, would the perception of what Rees did here be fair to him ?  Would it be based on accurate information, or a smear campaign ?
 
P.S.  How did the pummeling turn out ?

Okay, now everybody take five minutes, wipe the egg off your face, and let's get back to discussing architecture and golf courses based on fact not fiction.  

Thanks

[Tim Weiman]

Guys:

I'm trying to understand where we are with the thread. Thus far, the concensus seems to be:

a) Sandpines is a hugely disappointing golf course
b) the final product was not something "discovered"; instead it is rather artifical
c) the golf course was largely built on sand absent much stabilizing vegetation
d) the absence of stabilizing vegetation made the grow in phase of the project problematic

What remains unclear to me is:

a) the topography of the property pre construction
b) methods/approaches an alternative development team might have used to make the final product less disappointing

Have anyone fill me in on the points that remain unclear?

[RJ_Daley]

I shouldn't reply to you again Pat, as it only seems to encourage you.  But, here it is as plain as I can put it.  You have stepped across the lines on several occasions in your provocative and absurd accusations.  You try to put words in peoples mouths, in order to conscript or highjack other's ideas as if they support your own.  I don't associate my remarks with yours for the simple reason that I am finding your attacks of a fine person who just tried to add his own real experiences with that Oregon site to enhance and clarify his discussion, unpleasant.  Mike Dugger has worked on the construction and grow in of golf courses.  He has more knowledge of these matters than you, by a long shot.  He has more credibility than you do.  He has hopes of studying GCA at St. Andrews Univ., with Brian and others who contribute here.  He has been on and over the land we are speaking about, and had in no way perpetrated any sort of fraud by clearly telling that the pics he had posted were the land surrounding the area where the golf course was built.  I for one can see it clearly and it seems to me that all or most but you also understand and appreciate Mike's attempt to help the discussion along with something tangible to look at and reason from.  

That sort of good faith effort in a discussion is why we like to gather here and discuss these things.  It is distasteful to have a person of good will and decent intentions, maligned as a fraud.  Do you conduct your real life in such a manner?  Do you have to have the last work, no matter how absurd it may be?  I tried to give you the last word on this subject some pages ago, and tried to do it with humor.  But, I just can't help myself to once more give you my 2cents due to your unyeilding and unfair calling a person of good standing and well meaning intentions, a fraud.  You need to take some time to evaluate whether you are adding to any of this, supposedly recreational and convivial discussion of a passtime and subject we all enjoy, and ponder if you aren't making what should be a fun experience for a lot of people, an exercise in frustration and distaste.  

[Well Said RJ]

RJDaley,

AMEN!

You hit the nail on the head.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Amazing-one lark of a thread and this many posts!

Pat,
I have to tell you with all of the most sincerest tone that Fact Checker has completely understood my INTENT as far as distance is concerned. Who cares about something so inconsequential to the plain FACT.

I wish I had construction photos of [/b]Sandpines[/b] (all one word, since we are being so nitpicky here.) before construction, but I don't. Your best bet is to walk out to the far North end of the property alongside #7 and see what it looks like. I don't think there is a person here that has seen Sandpines that wouldn't agree with me, that it shows some remarkable dunes and blowouts that through NATURE provide the strategy you so strongly profess. This property is what Sandpines looked like because it is the same (now please understand this word) "sand field" as Sandpines exists. I ahve an oblique aerial photo that uniquely shows this transistion of golf course to the stark landscape of the dunes, but since I don't have my scanner hooked-up at this very moment, will have to wait.

As far as Michael Dugger's photos, I sort of have to somewhat disagree with Mike Erdmann there, and you won't catch me doing that too often. No, the ocean in the background is not what Sandpines is representitive of, but the dunes themselves aren't far off. In fact, the first picture looks to me to be from the very Northernmost part of the Oregon Dunes, coming from the North from Haceda Head, where the dune-line starts. It looks to have changed dramatically since I last saw it, because it was undergoing much Gorse removal--a State-funded project to further protect the dunes, but I'm pretty certain that this image is of that area. It would be the equal of accusing a persons head as not being part of his body.

There are three distinctive areas of differing dunes at Sandpines:

1-The main dune field (holes 1,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 &18)
2-The huge Easternmost slopes where the dune-line abruptly ends. (holes 8 & 9)
3-The Pine Barrens-like lower Western side of the property, which also happens to be the side that floods each year. (holes 2,3,4,5 & 6)

Having to run right now to get to a Superbowl party (Go Raiders!) I will leave you this one comparison from MDuggers pictures and mine. It is the one part of the property where the NATURAL wasn't TOTALLY destroyed by a bulldozer.

Somwhere in the Oregon Dunes

Sandpines 8th

[Fact Patrol Checker]

Pat, I think I will stay with Fact Patrol Checker. But next time you address me, please capitalize the first "C" in Checker. That would be more factually correct, as that is what is on my birth certificate.

I took the word "surrounding" to mean not the course itself but the general area. That was my understanding, my impression and my belief. Mdugger made that clear to me and most everyone else.

The most useful thing for you to do to further this discussion would be to provide any evidence that Rees Jones did what he said he did in the article--just the facts Pat--so that we can all understand how he truly did find the natural golf holes that were there pre-construction. Or, alternately, concede that the spirit of the sight is not adequately represented by regular mounding and the like.

Think about it Pat, one simple concession is all it takes.

[ChipOat]

Does all this mean that the "Suggested Protocol for Posting on GCA" that I proposed a couple of months back are simply impossible to implement when Rees Jones either is, or becomes, the central topic of discussion??

[Brian Phillips]

I have watched this thread go on for ages.  I promised myself at the start that I wouldn't write anything but now I have had enough.

As I look at the pictures of the course, do you know what it reminds me of?

The Eden course at St. Andrews...no not the first nine holes but the last nine holes designed by Donald Steel.  Is that a compliment? Ask Tommy and he will tell you the truth.

From the photos shown so far, the course looks crap.  It doesn't matter if it was built on clay or sand.  It looks crap.  I don't care if strategy wise it is perfect.  The pictures (and I repeat the pictures) make the course look awful.

Who is to blame?

Both the developer and the architect.  The architect always and I mean ALWAYS has a chance of pulling out if he doesn't think what is being done is correct.

The best example of developer intervention is probably Kingsbarns in Fife.  How wrong could that project have gone if it wasn't Mark Parsinen in charge.  Imagine if he had chosen a boring architect that wasn't willing to listen to the brief.

Now I don't know what the brief at Sand Pines was.  'Please produce a boring course from this piece of land but make it strategic...'

It doesn't matter.

Ree Jones has produced a golf course that the developer is happy with. In the end that is all that counts, because Tommy is not paying, MDugger is not paying but the developer is paying and in the real world that is all that counts.

Rees has no responsibility to anyone on this website or anyone in the golfing world but his client and if his client is happy then he has completed his contract...end of story.

I hope I don't ever design this way but hey, good luck to Rees Jones because obviously a lot of people like his designs.


Brian.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

You can make all the excuses you want for MDugger.

He deliberately posted photos of an area 50 miles removed from Sandpines, on the Pacific Ocean and offered them as the area surrounding Sandpines.  

It was a deliberate attempt to mislead all who view the site.  One only has to recall his own statements describing his anger toward Rees to understand the context in which he made his posts.  It was a deliberate, dishonest and underhanded attempt to denigrate Rees.

It appears that you fell for the ruse that the photos were taken at or next to the site, and now you're trying to defend the error of your position by attacking me, when you should be admonishing MDugger.

This isn't about who knows what or more, it's about honesty.

A good faith effort in discussion doesn't incorporate knowingly misrepresenting the facts.  If MDuggers abilities are as you say, then he clearly knew what he was doing.

Fact Patrol checker,

Now you're back tracking your position to interpret surrounding to mean the general area.  
Is 50 miles away the general area ??
Is Easton, PA in the general New York City area ?

Tommy Naccarato,

If someone has to be disengenuous to make their point, how strong can their point be ?

I've already conceded to you and Slag that I will accept your assessment of the golf course.

But, I think it is important to find out the particulars relative to its development, design and construction before rendering a final verdict

Less than a half a mile from the Pacific might have been a reflection of your exhuberance to sell your opinion.
It does make a difference in coastal settings.

The untainted answers to the questions I asked in my first post would help to better understand how the golf course came to its present form.

If there is not a bias against Rees where is the indignation from others, at being hoodwinked by the photos ?  

Was MDugger correct when he said that people believe what they want to believe ?

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Erdman:

You touch on some interesting points. But, can you clarify one point for me:

Did you actually visit and walk the Sandpines property prior to construction?

[Daniel Wexler]

Pat:

I've got a serious question regarding this "bias" issue.

First, please understand that I'm really only a marginally interested observer here.  I have never, so far as I can recall, seen an original Rees Jones design because, to be honest, they don't hold much interest for me.  I've never been publically critical of his work, nor have I ever met the man.  But here's the thing...

In my 25 years in and around the golf business I've never heard anything but positive things said about Rees Jones the person.  Indeed, several of his more prominent critics on this very site have told me that they find him pleasant, friendly, intelligent, etc.  The man is definitely well-liked.

Anyway, the dictionary I've got next to me defines bias -- at least so far as it pertains to this discussion (the first definition being "the line diagonal to the grain of a fabric") -- as "a highly personal and unreasoned distortion of judgement."  As it would be entirely illogical to suggest that people who find someone likable would then attack them for "highly personal" reasons, it seems to me that their criticism must be rooted in something else: Dislike for his golf courses.

Now, I don't disagree with most of what you say about blaming developers (they certainly could have said no), and it obviously doesn't make a great deal of sense to jump all over a golf course that one has never seen.  But as I truly don't know anyone who dislikes Rees on a personal level, it doesn't seem as though "bias" really comes into play.

Jumping the gun to criticize his work because they've seen other courses of his they don't like?  Sure.  But even if that fails to represent the peak of enlightened dialogue, it does seem to at least be rooted in the discussion of architecture-- which, after all is what this site is supposed to be about.

DW

[Fact Patrol Checker]

Pat, you really do jump to conclusions. Why do you assume that the photos are from an area 50 miles away? Mr. Erdman indicates that they could be from anywhere from 10 miles north to 50 miles south. What if they are from 1 mile away? What if they represent the general 60 mile vicinity and should have suggested to Rees Jones a more irregular look to his design?

How do you like the look of Rees's regular mounding? Is that a question you are willing to answer? Your opinion will suffice. No need to attempt to express facts on that question. Tommy and mdugger, are there any photos you can show us of the regular mounding that exists naturally in the vicinity that must have jumped up and inspired Rees Jones?

Still having trouble answering the question of whether or not Rees Jones found the best natural golf holes aren't you Pat? One thing you do do is to concede to Tommy his assessment of the course. That is a nice concession.

Oh yes, I know, I am not kidding myself about getting answers to any of my questions. The anonymous card and all...although there is hope, given your "sometimes I will, sometimes I won't answer" approach to even that issue...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

FPC, (So many new names! FPC, Fact Patrol, Mr. Quotation Marks aka "  ")

FPC, I'll place it here again, this is the best one I have of the Northern end of the site.

[Mike Erdmann]

Mike Erdman:

You touch on some interesting points. But, can you clarify one point for me:

Did you actually visit and walk the Sandpines property prior to construction?

Tim, yes I was on the property prior to construction.  It's been well over 10 years ago, and I didn't have an interest in golf course architecture then, so my memories of the site were never geared towards how the land would be or was used for the course.  It's been long enough that my recollection of the land isn't very good, but it's enough to know that those photos had to be of someplace else.

[Fact Patrol]

Mr. Mucci

I knew you couldn’t help yourself and it didn’t take you long to validate my MUD, BICKER, DISCREDIT theory.  

MUD:  First you say that mdugger never said that the pictures weren’t of the site.  Then when shown the quote, you focus on the definition of the word “expressly”.  Then after being presented with irrefutable evidence that mdugger was in fact explicit, you now go back to the drawing board and focus on the definition of the word “surrounding”???  That’s hysterical.  Neither you nor anybody else initially interpreted mdugger’s post to mean that the photos represented all of the land 360 degrees around the Sandpines site.  I won’t even bother to tell you to learn to say you were wrong or made a mistake (remember Perry Maxwell ), because we all now know that you are incapable of doing anything but throwing-up these ridiculous arguments.

BICKER:  No FACTS needed on this one.  It permeates throughout all of your posts.

DISCREDIT:  “I'm disappointed in and for you.  I think you've severely damaged your credibility.  Your dislike of Rees was so strong that you compromised your integrity to misrepresent the facts….The photos were clearly misleading.”  (Mucci Post #302)
mdugger didn’t misrepresent the FACTS (it was clear at least to me and others what he did) and the jury is still out on whether his photos were clearly misleading!  Perhaps to the contrary it is you that has jumped to a premature conclusion.

One person, Mike Erdmann, makes a statement and you immediately take the bait:  “Now here's a fellow who saw the pre-construction site and claims it looked nothing like the photos MDugger posted.  A fellow with first hand knowledge, the facts.”  (Mucci Post #302)  The FACTS???  The only FACT is that Mike Erdmann rendered an OPINION.  But does that make it a FACT???  Mr. Naccarato doesn’t think so, and now Mr. Erdmann himself admits that “It's been long enough that my recollection of the land isn't very good, but it's enough to know that those photos had to be of someplace else.”  So now he's saying what most of us already knew, that the photos were not of the Sandpines site.  But we now also know that his "memories of the site were never geared towards how the land would be or was used for the course."  So the scales seem to be tipping back towards at least the possibility that mdugger's photos were in fact REPRESENTATIVE of the Sandpines site.

But you were so interested in discrediting mdugger that you didn’t wait for Mr. Naccarato’s OPINION on the issue.  Now are you still going to claim that you know the FACTS???  Why am I almost certain that you will find a way to do so!  
(Mr. Naccarato, when you have more time could you please go through the mdugger photos and tell us which ones you believe are representative of the Sandpines site and which ones are not.  That would be both helpful and interesting.)

It is ironic Mr. Mucci that you, the Champion of Anti-BIAS and FACTS, have once again exhibited perhaps the greatest degree of BIAS on this thread in your desire to discredit mdugger (and in your case, it is clearly personal) based on a single OPINION, since qualified, which you then characterized as a FACT???  Perhaps it is time for you, Mr. Mucci, to turn in your Sheriff’s badge!!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Daniel Wexler,

I think you have to view the situation understanding that people have diversity to their being.  
Human beings are not necessarily one dimensional.  
There are facets to a human being, social, business, professional, avocational, charitable, etc., etc..

I know brilliant surgeons who have the personality and social skills of a wet washrag.
I know brilliant businessmen who are ferociously ruthless, who would give you the shirt off their back in a social or charitable setting.

I'm told by people who know former President Clinton that he is quite personal and charming.  Yet, I think we could agree that with respect to government and politics you could find a good number of people who revile him.

When a poster claims that Rees Jones courses don't make you THINK, and not one poster/lurker on this site objects to that  statement, you have to question the objectivity of the poster/lurkers, and perhaps consider that perhaps a bias exists.

When a photo, clearly misrepresenting a pre-construction site is posted, and Rees is villified for ruining the site that appears in the photos, and it is later discovered that the photos look nothing like the pre-construction site, and not one poster/lurker strenuously objects to the ruse, choosing instead to defend it, you have to ask yourself. are these the actions of individuals with a clear, objective mind, or is there a bias toward Rees ?

If we removed Rees from the above two situations, and inserted other architects, do you think the silence would have been so deafening ?

As in a courtroom, isn't the defendent entitled to have all the facts presented before a verdict is rendered ?  
Or has GCA become a kangaroo court ?

There are some questions I posed, that remain unanswered, and proabably a good many other questions that I feel are key to trying to understand what took place at Sandpines.

In the final analysis, Tommy Naccarato and others could be right.  On the other hand, they could be wrong.
What is needed is an honest, objective presentation of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation, design and construction of Sandpines.  
Then proceed with rendering your verdict.

Is that too much to ask for ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fact Patrol,

Before Mike Erdmann disputed the location and the representation made by MDugger, I knew those photos were not of the Sandpines site.

One only had to notice the Pacific Ocean, the vegetation on the dunes, view maps and aerials of the site and view the pictures on the Sandpines website to establish that the pictures offered bore no resemblence to the Sandpines site.

Tell me, where are the stands of tall, dense pine trees that SURROUND Sandpines on Three (3) sides ?

Where are ANY pine trees in MDuggers pictures ??

I know what Tommy Naccarato's opinion on Sandpines is,
We've had many discussions about it off this thread and website, so once again, you're wrong.

MDugger attempted to deliberately deceive GCA'ers, and he did, resulting in highly negative comments that appeared subsequent to his posting of the photos.  Read those posts.
EVERYBODY thought that those photos were a representation of the site or land surrounding Sandpines.

He has now admitted that the photos are from the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area  10 to 50 miles removed.  
And you're trying to defend his deception, his misrepresentation.

But, I understand, you bet on the wrong horse and lost.

If you LOOK at the aerial photo of Sandpines (fact), and you combine Mike Erdmann's first hand knowledge of the area, the only conclusion that can be prudently drawn is that MDugger's photos look nothing like the pre-construction site at Sandpines.

Mike Erdmann's reference to Oblique Dunes is also noteworthy.
Oblique Dunes, due to the nature of their creation and perpetuation, by the shifting of the prevailing winds, are absent vegetation.  If you look at the aerial photo of Sandpines, you will note that NO vegetation exists on the adjacent sand belt to the north.  
Oblique Dunes are also quite different from the dunes at the beach and foredunes, which is what MDugger pictured.

But, as I said, I understand your position, you bought into those pictures being accurate representations of the Sandpines site.  

You bet on the wrong horse and lost and are now trying to cover up your own naivety and the continued foolishness of your position.  

Go ahead, tell me how the Raiders won the SuperBowl  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Welcome back aboard--how're they hanging big fella? It's been almost TOO serene on this website today without you! It's about time for some more fur to fly!

[Michael Dugger]

Pat, quite simply, go F*&# yourself.

I've had enough of your B.S.

I never tried to deceive GCA'ers?

ONCE AGAIN, so that it may perhaps sink into your thick wrinkly old skull this time.  I NEVER CLAIMED THE PICTURES WERE OF THE ACTUAL SITE.

Like I said before, if I had them, and they did look like the pictures I did post, this would be OVER!!!  

Even then you'd come up with something, probably that I tampered with the evidence.  

You can officially chalk me up as someone who will be looking out for you for the rest of eternity.  You better not as much fail to replace a divot and I will be watching.  Next time you kick your ball from the trees, I'll notice.  Next crappy topic you begin, I'll ruin.

Have a nice life  

  

[Rees Jones]

Pat, quite simply, go F*&# yourself.

I've had enough of your B.S.


You can officially chalk me up as someone who will be looking out for you for the rest of eternity.  You better not as much fail to replace a divot and I will be watching.  Next time you kick your ball from the trees, I'll notice.  Next crappy topic you begin, I'll ruin.

Have a nice life  
 

And you guys are still wondering why we "in the business" do not take you seriously

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()