The purpose of this site

[Ally Mcintosh]

The intenet can surely be a curse... It makes people bold where they shouldn't be... and it is rife for reading the tone of a communication wrongly...

[Philip Gawith]

You are very kind Sean. For avoidance of doubt - I don't have enough GCA knowledge to "wear it lightly", nor enough GCA authority to worry about whether i have earnt it or not! But I can see it in others, including your good self! But you are right that the site does not have a big problem - as you say, a few tiffs and too many meta-threads!

Good that i can be a ringer at something Brent!

[Lou_Duran]

People with grace know to "wear their knowledge lightly". And people with authority earn that authority, they don't command it by one-upmanship.

Most of us have very little difficulty working out which people on this site know more than others, which deserve respect, and whether people are contributing in good faith out of a genuine GCA interest, or have ulterior motives. There is no reason at all why frank dialogue should not be civilised dialogue, albeit this site produces too many contrary examples.

Philip,

You should participate much more often.  Spoken like a true PR executive.  Would you care to guess what percentage of your clients 'with grace know to "wear their knowledge lightly" ' rose through the ranks to earn that authority?  Or is grace acquired or attained once the authority is achieved?  But I digress.

Notwithstanding Ran's beautiful sentiments and objectives, the actual purposes of this site are primarily for entertainment, companionship, social networking, access, some sharing of information/learning, and an escape from doing some more important things that we should be doing but don't want to do (as a world-class procrastinator, I know).  There is nothing terribly wrong with any of these, and even the ego gratification that many of us seek (from being seen as intelligent, thoughtful, caring, witty, etc.) has its healthy benefits.

Is this site particularly argumentative in a really negative way?  I don't paticipate in any other, so I don't know first hand, but from what I hear, this one is pretty tame.

And why should we expect there to be accord and civility when society is so fractious and uncivil.  Put in the broader context, GCA.com seems to be doing pretty good.  When relatively smart people can look at the same data- some would say "set of facts"- and come up with diametrically different conclusions about even the most trivial of things, how can we expect unity and cohesion when the issues are of grave importance, like golf?  Unreasonable expectations nearly always result in disappointment.

Finally, if we want to elevate the discussion here, we may want to try being more serious in what we post.  The originator of this thread, who apparently thinks it is funny to confuse people with his name, and the first response, hardly suggest that this a topic to be considered seriously .

Okay, now back to finishing my tax returns.  It is October 15.



   

[Lynn_Shackelford]

And Lou, after you complete you taxes, it might be a good idea to finally get the Xmas lights put away!

Let me know what you know about Boot Ranch.  Contacts, type of membership, management, etc.
Thanks.

[George Pazin]

And Lou, after you complete you taxes, it might be a good idea to finally get the Xmas lights put away!

Some lucky folks have to file quarterly.

Here is am admittedly silly example of the lack or trust in today's world, from my real life yesterday:

I was delivering t's to my best client, down on the South Side of Pittsburgh. As I drove through the back streets, shortly before reaching my destination, I encountered a black SUV, sitting in the right lane of a 2 lane street, picking up a passenger. I stopped, waited for the young woman to get in, then waited for the SUV to go. I sat for about 20-30 seconds before I gave up waiting and drove around it. The young woman driving stuck her tongue out at me as I passed her. I still don't know why. I waited patiently, in spite of the fact that she had no turn signals or hazards on, I waited for her to start up after her passenger got in. I have no idea why this young woman was annoyed, and I even asked my workers in the car with me if they thought I did anything wrong. They were as confused as me.

I feel that way on here sometimes when people respond in bizarre fashion to relatively mild posts.

That's why I started the Get To Know series, in the hope that if people know each other a little more personally, they will be less apt to jump to the wrong conclusions.

[Garland Bayley]

People with grace know to "wear their knowledge lightly". And people with authority earn that authority, they don't command it by one-upmanship.

...

Well, if that is an RTJ, Sr. design, I can guarantee you he was not designing it so you could open up the green for an easy L-wedge.  Because (a) there were no L-wedges back then, and (b) Mr. Jones was not a big fan of easy.

Philip,

Is this an example of "wear their knowledge lightly"? And not one-upmanship?
Please explain your answer so that even an engineer can understand.

[Philip Gawith]

Garland - it is a bit invidious to ask me to comment on an individual, especially Tom Doak. But since you do....

- no, that is not an example of wearing your knowledge lightly, nor, however, is it an example of someone playing "one-upmanship".
- it is just a forcefully expressed personal opinion, from someone whose opinions certainly command authority for very obvious reasons.
- as Lou points out, people participate for various reasons, and that surely includes Tom Doak. But it is pretty obvious to me that he posts in good fairth, out of love for GCA etc, not with a principle aim of scoring points.
- when you are a known authority in a field, like Tom Doak, then you take on a different status and it is probably not realistic to expect such people to 'wear their knowledge lightly" because other people are often petitioning them in virtue of their authority ie there is a virtually explicit recognition from the outset that they are the authority. When you got a Professor you expect them to deploy their expertise, not hide it away.
- maybe, on reflection, the phrase applies best to amateurs with a very high level of knowledge, who share their expertise readily, but modestly, without a sense of superiority. Lots of people on the site qualify!

[Jed Peters]

Isn't the purpose of this site to meet chicks?

[Jim_Kennedy]

It used to be, but she was driven away by George who couldn't wait patiently for her to get moving in traffic.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Philip,

Would I be correct in assuming that not "wearing your knowledge lightly" would also not be one-upmanship if a reference to an expert or other documentation were included?

For example:

No, that is not how the majors were determined, because a) the Western open was considered far more important, and b) even the North-South open was a superior draw of golfing talent than the Masters. For a description of how the present set of majors came about see XXXX.

I hope I captured a tone in my example that would be considered not wearing knowledge lightly.

The quote in my earlier question was simply the first I saw that I thought might not be wearing knowledge lightly.

[Garland Bayley]

Isn't the purpose of this site to meet chicks?

We all made friends with Jordan Wall for that purpose, but he has pretty much dropped out, so we are back to frank and light discussion.

[Anthony Gray]

Isn't the purpose of this site to meet chicks?

  Post of the year!

  Anthony

[Anthony Gray]

In  the past year I have gotton an apreciation for the Old Dead  Guys and a desire to learn more. But at times the patronizing of those that know more is not what I expected from knowlegable gentelmen golfers.

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,
So let me get this straight, you just did a Macdonald theme/tribute/homage course and you've never read that line? That's embarrassing.

Maybe you should expand your reading horizons. The quote in question first appeared in the article noted here by Moriarty, which was reproduced in Masters of the Links, a book you were a contributor to (thanks again!). Hopefully you still have that on the shelves to refer to?

Don't tell me you've become like Oscar Levant: "I've given up reading books; I find it takes my mind off myself."
Geoff

 

[Mike Nuzzo]

If I were Dr. Katz I'd ask this....

George,

Why did you look at the driver?

Cheers

[Joe Hancock]

Isn't the purpose of this site to meet chicks?

You'd think so with topic titles like "Surface Tension".....

Joe

[Anthony Gray]

  To meet chicks and turn into whores (access).

   Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship

As Jim says, I don't think Frank Discussion involves be-littling, putting down others, or proping-up oneself.  It involves critical and rational discussion of the facts at hand without, (as best as possible), inserting biases, uninformed opinions, logical fallacies, non-relevant info, etc.

The problem is that so much of the discussion on this site (and elsewhere) relies on the interpretation of the reader. And so many people have been continually exposed to the emoting type of thinking that permeates all levels of our society, particularly in the education system, that it almost doesn't matter what one actually says, someone is guaranteed to take offense or read it as one-upmanship.

I have no idea what the answer is, other than to try your best and hope that the majority of the audience realizes it when someone overreacts.

I am in accord with George. I think a significant portion of the problem is with the reader. For example, when I read David Moriarty's posts, I see him stating facts and supporting his arguments with logic. In response, I see lots of emotional responses accusing him of trying to do things like score points and engage in one-upmanship.

I disagree with Philip, although I don't expect him to debate it here. Facts and logic are facts and logic. They are not light, nor do they need to be light. When Tom Doak writes, "Because (a) there were no L-wedges back then, and (b) Mr. Jones was not a big fan of easy" he is stating a facts and logical conclusions. I know the facts he stated to be true, and I believe his logical reasoning to be correct. Therefore, it is neither heavy nor light.

[George Pazin]

If I were Dr. Katz I'd ask this....

George,

Why did you look at the driver?

Cheers

I didn't - my guys with me told me she stuck her tongue out. I was surprised, got a good laugh out of it, though not quite as good a laugh as I got from Jim Kennedy's joke.

[Dr Katz]

Why does one look at the driver? Ah, indeed, that is the question of life, is it not?
Dr Katz

[Norbert P]

Garland, one-upmanship sets a horrible standard.  My goal is nine-upmanship with eight to go.