To answer some points made in the initial post:
1. Jeff, what a funny response to the Eck Thread.
2. What Eck posted (and Jeff responded to) was a theory. Don't like it, debunk it.
3. I think architects should go through a little desensitivity training. Perhaps picking up The Confidential Guide will help with this.
4. Criticism is part of the arts. Some of it is fair, some not. That's life. The beauty is the forum allows responses. It's not a vacuum.
5. I think anonymous posts should be allowed. Especially for those architects that may have something to say but don't want to be known. It's not being gutless, it's common sense, especially if you're an associate somewhere. It's why the press uses unnamed sources from "this dept" and "that dept". Much is lost without anonymous posters.
Now I can understand some of the piling on from time to time isn't the most tactful, and is the product of the Herd Mentality. It's everywhere in society. Good and bad. Golf architecture is rife with it. The problem with it on a forum like this is trying to regulate it. In the end you scare people away from making cutting edge comments. I think this would represent a far, far greater loss.
The Confidential Guide is a tremendous example. Tasteless to some (competitors), motivated at least one competitor to tell the author he cannot write if he seeks ASGCA membership, yet tremendously valuable for others. Who is to decide? The Dept. of Censorship? How about each individual?
Let freedom reign, with all its warts and beauty. That provides the best value.
If architects drop out because they don't like the tone or content...oh well. Tough darts. They have a chance to offer or not offer their 10 cents. And should they chose not to, life on GCA will go on without them.
The forum does well enough without 99% of the architects. What would losing a fraction of one percent mean?