Well, I have no illusions that I'll ever be invited into the inner sanctums of a "think tank". Or if I were to find myself in one, I'd probably feel like a scuba diver, out of air and 100ft from the surface...
But, I'll go with Pat's thoughts that GCA is a good subject resource to explore issues.. We are all savvy enough to know that everything we read, and that "we" write, that appears on the Internet, is not to be taken for authentic or authoritative, on its own - generally speaking. But, we do sift and winnow around here, and sometimes get close to defining various aspects of GCA.
Mike Young, I believe that you are a bit harsh in what you say...
I don't think "think tank" would be the right word. This site is very very selective of the golf architecture it discusses....it is not quite a la la land but it has no interest in delving into the actual golf architecture business as it applies to most of the industry. It is informative when discussing the select group of projects it discusses but is not practical for most situations IMHO.
and
A lot of people on this site study architecture with a passion and are very educated on their particular segment but the realistic part of the business doesn't hold the interest that the idealistic does.
I believe that when any of you professional archies bring a practical discussion about the so-called realities of your business to the discussion, it gets a fair and comprehensive airing out. I assume you are speaking of the realities of $$$ management, and construction techniques, and phazing projects, and so forth.
The trouble is, most archies don't bring those specific reality topics to us for a discussion. To some extent, there might be ASGCA ethics involved in discussion of the realities and nuts an bolts because such discussions might inevitably bring up conflicts of opinion that might identify certain deficiencies of one archie or the other, and would be contrary to the professional code of ethics of the Society. Another reason that archies may not bring details is because it might reveal competitive business practices that are preferred to be kept private.
But, I think if an archie that feels they are passed over in GCA.com discussions because the group think is bias towards a select small group of archies, then I believe it is incumbant on that archie to bring it - so to speak. I think they should put something of their own work out there, and give the thinkers and tinkers a chance to debate, sift and winnow. I believe that there wouldn't be as much bias as many who comment about bias on here would have the rest of us believe.
The trick is getting topics and specifics where a variety of GCA.com posters have had some shared personal experience, particularly when discussing some individual archie and their work.