Wow what a thread so far...
Let me break it down...
1) We have a poorly researched article on the "most expensive" clubs which appears to be strictly based on rumor and posturing rather than fact. Most of these clubs have been spoken for and said to be wrong. Amazing.
A certain club I have worked at (and posted about) that makes the list is almost wrong on the magnitude of 6 digits to the best of my knowledge (current April this year). How funny.
2) The discussion of top private clubs and their to some "outrageous" price tags immediately causes some here to woe the rich for their lavish spending when their are so many "better" and "useful" ways to spend their money. Amazing how in this context these clubs bring up "inequality" aka "the greatest sin in America" and yet when they are discussed alone in their own threads we can just talk about how great (or in some cases not as great) the courses are.
It's so easy to spend other people's money FOR THEM isn't it? I'm sure the first thing some people said reading that list was something along the lines of "well if I had that much money I certainly wouldn't waste it on a 'ridiculous' golf membership like that. There are plenty of 'good causes' and 'poor' people that 'deserve' or should get that money instead." And yet I am curious if those people who question the decisions of the rich will immediately "redistribute" (as if it was distributed by some higher power in the first place) and send all of their next raise or any type of extra money they might receive in the future to 'poor' people and 'better causes' than their own. Or will it rather go to their kids college tuition or a mortgage or a new car for the wife or on this site more likely a trip with the boys to Bandon for themselves? And what might their answer be then? "Well thats because I earned it and its my money!" How funny it is when its your money. Did you forget the 'better causes'? But hey when it comes to money people get funny. This thread being a perfect example actually.
3) We have "found" that "conservative" joking is ok but not "liberal" posting of threads. Good to know I guess? Has nothing to do with golf architecture so who cares? I was curious why there wasn't different sections of threads under the DG but I now know why I think. It's supposed to be about constructive discussion on golf and golf architecture and nothing else. So its easy to understand why such OT threads get deleted. I also would think that OT threads that don't entice bickering and arguing get let by because they don't distract from golf talk all that much. We could all fight about politics til the cows come home forever as long as this site existed but an OT thread about the NBA finals won't even be remembered two weeks from now and we'll be onto discussing the British Open instead. I would imagine that if you desire an answer you could ask the PTB directly by pm rather than requesting one outright Doug. I certainly don't think your request is unjustified I just doubt you'll get an answer this way as it itself is taking away from GCA discussion.
Did I miss anything?
Nope, not a thing. You certainly made certain assumptions that did not encompass MY view of how people should use their wealth, so I will assume you were not referring to me.
I said earlier that I would drop this, allowing whomever deleted my thread mere moments after it was put out to answer me if they will. They certainly did not need to do so.
Since once again you DO make it sound like my thread spawned from nothing but my 'liberal' rantings, I WILL reiterate this much.
1. Someone made very spiteful and contemptuous political assertions, stated as if factual.
2. I offered to 'wait and see'.
3.I waited and saw!
4. Their prediction/assertion so contemptuously given proved totally unfounded by the facts.
5. I offered [in a thread clearly titled OT: Political, so those who did not want to read such would not], I offered, as I say, an opportunity for said raver to concede that they had been mistaken.
6. I did NOT put forth any counterravings. I simply showed how that facts contradicted.
7. UNLIKE the statements which WERE spiteful, my toned response was deleted immeadiately.
8. This is not the first time. And yet, I constantly see conservative political mutterings here accepted, often with agreement from others, and apparently no response from 'the Powers the Be'.
All this being said, I am content to, once again, let this stand. This IS a private site. Those who own/control CAN censor at will. They can answer me at will too .... or not.
Doug