Your homework assignment for this evening

[Jim Thompson]

Sorry to repeatedly bump my own thread - feel free to draw your own inferences about my motives - but I just thought of an excellent example of the sort of thing we're missing out on, because people feel the need to constantly question others' motives:

There are many examples of architects and others on here who have projects in the works, but they are afraid to discuss them, for fear of the onslaught of jeers. To use one specific example, I for one would LOVE to know what is going on with Cabot, but I can certainly understand why Ran, Ben and others refrain from sharing. That is everyone's loss on here, however. There is nothing I enjoy more on here than people sharing their passion, and we are all worse off for the cynical beatings that discourage others from doing so.

George,

That's pretty close to my experience.  When I tried to share the how's and why's of my project it was considered self serving by some.  The fact of the matter is, after years of lurking, I actually tried to help create what you all said you wanted...  That's why I don't post much anymore.  I sure do appreciate the friendships and sharing with interested folks though!

Cheers!

JT

[astavrides]

.

[Sean_A]

George

Despite your leanings toward supporting the Pens I would agree with you.  Of course I can't can say for sure, but I believe the nastiest exchanges on here have been when folks question motives of others.  I know for certain that I have written my sharper posts when I suspected the other person of something or other - luckily I don't carry grudges so these moments don't stay with me for long.  Somebody else wrote earlier that reading behind the words is human nature and he was absolutely correct.  However, in some way we need control ourselves a bit more because at the end of the day this site isn't make or break for anybody so there isn't much of a reason to get bent out of shape. 

There hasn't been much discussed lately, but this issue of access seeking was (and may still be) one of the huge motive questioning issues on this site.  There were many times where folks were shouted down for asking for recos on where is best to play in one town or another.  Some believed it was just fishing for an invite and this was something I could never understand.  Alright, some out there believe there has been a problem in the past, but man, how serious could it have been when a guy has the power not to invite someone?  Wouldn't it be easier to accept someone at their word where this issue is concerned and decide for yourself if you want to help them out in any way?

I have said it before, but just to make matters easy, if anybody would like to play with me (or not even) at one of my clubs don't hesitate to ask.  If I can accommodate you I will.  One of my goals for being on this site is to meet people of the same freaky ilk. 

One last thing, if my posts seem a bit off and harsh don't take it that way.  It is more than likely a case of the humour gone awry or some other stupid thing which has nothing to do with the person I am responding to.  In other words - I apologize now for my seeming indiscretions. 

Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

...Somebody else wrote earlier that reading behind the words is human nature and he was absolutely correct. ...

What you neglect to say is that it is the human nature of the reader that is exposed by his interpretation of "reading behind the words". It does not necessarily expose what the writer was thinking.

[George Pazin]

There's questioning motives and there's asking questions about motives.  The former implies, not necessarily but usually, a negative judgment, while the latter, to my mind, seeks clarification.  Sometimes a question can be phrased as the latter, yet imply the former, intentionally or not.  I don't see any problem with seeking clarification.  Regarding the former, the negative "motive questioning," it all depends on how the question or comment is phrased.  I think you can express a negative take without being personal.  That's what I'd prefer.

From the perspective of a new participant, it's difficult for me to tell where some of you are coming from.  Is the Pebble Beach vs. Oakmont thing really serious, good natured ribbing, an inside joke, or something else?  For longtime participants, that's probably a silly question, but not for a new guy.  Sometimes it's easy to tell, but here I'm not sure.  (I don't need a real answer.)  I've read posts on GCA for a number or years, but only became a participant a month or so ago.  It's going to take a while, probably a long while, for me to pick up on all the subtexts, undercurrents, or whatever.

Excellent distinctions, something I will keep in mind. I still can't say I like questions about motives, but the distinction you made should be noted.

As for the Pebble Oakmont thing, that's a long-running joke between me and Huck. I think we both know the silliness inherent in claiming obvious superiority when discussing two universally acclaimed top 10 course (especially since everyone knows Oakmont is clearly better...).

...Somebody else wrote earlier that reading behind the words is human nature and he was absolutely correct. ...

What you neglect to say is that it is the human nature of the reader that is exposed by his interpretation of "reading behind the words". It does not necessarily expose what the writer was thinking.

Fantastic post, I wonder if most, in our intrinsically myopic world, understand this crucial point.

[Tom Huckaby]

I dunno George, your preference for Oakmont is always my proof of your insanity.

 

The remainder of this has sailed so far over my head, I feel like Billy Barty playing beach volleyball.

[SL_Solow]

When I was learning argumentation I was taught that ad hominem attacks reveal that the attacker has nothing to say of merit about the other side's argument and thus must resort to irrelevancies as a means of distracting others from the weakness of his position.  Thus, unless the topic of the discussion is the qualifications of an individual to hold a position or their expertise to make a judgment call, personal attacks, whether they are related to motives or otherwise, have no place in our discussions because they add nothing to the conversation.  They are just noise which only reveals a lack of substance in the contribution of the speaker.  But what is worse, they can lead to a degeneration of the discussion and can damage the friendly atmosphere that we have developed.  I am not talking about the good natured ribbing (talk about an archaic term) that goes on among friends.  Nor am I suggesting that the board be used for blatantly commercial purposes.  I am proposing that we try to keep our comments and critiques focused on the substance of the discussions.  Even if we think someone is pandering for access we can deal with that by denying them what they seek.  Most of us are anxious to meet our friends and to have a game but the abusers are pretty easy to spot.

Honest, no holds barred debate is to enlightening and fun.  Personal attacks including challenging motives is another type of discussion which belongs elsewhere.

George;  thanks for the thoughtful thread.

[Garland Bayley]

Shel's post ranks up there pretty high too don't you think Paze?

[George Pazin]

Shel's post ranks up there pretty high too don't you think Paze?

Shel's posts always do.

Huck, there's a lot more obvious proof than that...

[Lyne Morrison]

Nice post SL.

George, I’ve been participating on gca for about 10 seconds probably - but a few thoughts if I may. I feel your question is multi layered and that it must embrace not only motive but acceptance and respect also (and probably many other values too). I’m thinking that we would all like to be accepted for who we are – surely that is the greatest form of respect. By questioning others motives or engaging in personal criticism, what message are we sending? what values are we conveying?

Life is complex, contradictory and inconsistent. As a collective group we bring varied cultural and professional experience to the site and with this, a diversity of views  - if we choose to, we can accept this.

When we disrespect others we inevitably reveal much about ourselves as individuals. We also invite negative responses to the DG that undermine the intent of the site and the positives that are to be gained from productive discussion. On the other hand by looking for the best in others, by giving the benefit of the doubt we can achieve much – we can move beyond doubt and suspicion and avoid unnecessary angst.

As David Forgan explains in his words on Golf; "It affords the chance to play the man, and act the gentleman"

Thanks for the thread George -

Cheers -- Lyne

[SL_Solow]

Lyne,  If the rest of your posts are of a similar quality to this one, we need to hear from you more often.  Its nice to make your acquaintance.

[Garland Bayley]

Hey George,

Someone has posted an Acushnet marketing blurb as a thread. Perhaps they are providing a real live test for your thread here.

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't want to come off as an argumentative ba@#@rd, but I just want to reiterate that questioning motives is not equal to a personal attack. Now perhaps we sometimes call an apple an orange, and maybe I'm not talking about the same thing everyone else is, but a motive is a goal or circumstance that motivates one to action. Any time you say "why would you want to do that?" or "what do you hope to accomplish?" you're questioning someone's motives. None of that is remotely the same as questioning someone's integrity or attacking them personally.

Here's a hypothetical example of where questioning motives is a perfectly reasonable response:

Post#1: How do you switch bluegrass fairways over to fescue fairways?

Respondent#1: Well, you've got to kill the grass with roundup.....(imagine extremely long and informative explanation here)

Respondent#2: Uh, why would you want to do that?

Original Poster: My course's fairways are not firm and fast and all of my favorite courses (which are firm and fast) have fescue fairways.

Respondent#2: Oooohh, if all you really want is F&F then...(imagine extremely long and informative explanation here)




Now, with all that said, I DO NOT condone personal attacks, questioning of integrity, or general suspiciousness and meanness toward our fellow posters. AND there are many times when motives do not matter, including George's example of the Oakmont thread (anyone who would get after you about that, George, needs a swift kick in the pants) and needn't be brought up. But if questioning motives is off limits, then we may have a great deal of trouble finding and answering the real question.