next »

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I understand Notre Dame is struggling this year, but does it cause so much stress as to effect your thinking?

ND's 6-3 record has neither caused me stress nor affected my thinking. 


Have you ever seen sand, not top dressing applied by green keepers in a regimented and purposeful manner, blowing about on a course. 

NO, not in any meaningful amount.
But, then again, I've only been playing golf for 55+ years at a number of courses

Could you cite five courses in America where this is occuring on a regular basis ?

Typical greenside and fairway bunkers contain limited amounts of sand.
A bunker with dimensions of 10 yards by 15 yards probably contains less than 25 c/yds
If the ENTIRE bunker was emptied and the sand dispursed by the winds the impact to a significant area would be minimal.

Some areas may get a foot of the stuff -

You're hallucinating.

Let's see if I understand this, a bunker with dimensions, say of 10 yds by 15 yds with sand to a depth of 6", with less than 25 c/yds is going to somehow dump a foot of sand on the surrounding turf, and the same wind that took that sand out of the bunker and deposited it to a depth of one foot is not going to further dispurse that pile of sand any further, throughout the property, is that right ? 

Could you cite five courses in America where this condition exists on a regular basis ?

And, when it does, do they VACUUM all of the sand and put it back in the bunker, or, does a good deal of the sand, the residue, remain as a form of topdressing ?

Face it, you don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

I bet they don't roll at 13 you dope. 


I bet this condition doesn't exist except in your uninformed mind.
Could you cite 5 courses where the sand is regularly blown from the greenside bunkers, up onto the greens, to a depth of one foot ?

Are you starting to get the picture now? 


Sure, but, it's a figment of your imagination.

This isn't tough stuff Pat, but when you want to play games it can drag on needlessly. 

What I'm not doing is fabricating a condition known only to you.
A condition that would have us believe that sand is conveniently removed out of a bunker, by high winds, in an orderly fashion and conveniently dumped onto that green to a depth of one foot, without the sand on the green being blown elsewhere by that same wind.

Do the words, "fairy tale" ring true ?

Have you found a super yet who wants to allow nature to top dress their course rather than the green keepers?

That was never an issue, that was a distorted fabrication you made up.
I stated that wind blown sand is no different than top dressing with sand, other than consistency, and that it does no harm to the turf, and further, that sand splash probably puts more sand on greens than the wind, and no harm is done to those greens either.

Face it, you're out of your element on this topic, and the only way you can save face is through fabrication and distortion. 

Jeepers, there is stubborn and  obtuse, then there is Patrick Mucci.  Lord save us.


Stubborn I am, but, I'm not disengenuous.
And, I'd rather be stubborn than disengenuous.

[TEPaul]

"As usual your babble has nothing to do with the subject matter. I was interested in what Bradley had to say and it was very informative, but despite his knowledge about agronomy his initial suggestions regarding NGLA were wrong across the board.  Bradley has come around to see it my way:"

If that's what you think----that he's come around to seeing it your way----perhaps you should just do the intelligent thing and ask Bradley himself about that.   It sounds to me like he's about as turned off by the things you say on here as I am, and as so many others who are on here are and who were on here but left because of you were.

As for the rest of that last post----Jeeesus Moriarty, even I'm beginning to feel sorry for you, at this point, and believe me it takes a lot on your part for me to begin to feel sorry for someone who acts like you always have on this website.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

How much time have you spent and how many massive multi-colored text posts with directional lines and diagrams or whatever drawn on them via Google Earth etc have you and Moriarty put on this thread debating that photo and that hill in the background?

Why don't you just do what I did a number of years ago when I first saw that photo and that hill in the background, and any sensible person should do -----eg just go out on that hole and look at that damn hill to the right of the mid-body of #2 (as I said about four pages and some days ago)?
TEPaul, in terms of priorities, this is not high on my list at the moment.
I have a business to run, a family to tend to and other interests which occupy my time, especially at this time of year.
When I get the chance I'll return and view a site I'm fairly familiar with.
I see David's point, perspective and visuals, I'm just not prepared to agree with him regarding the features and the locations.
I'll get to it when it's convenient for me to do so.
In the meantime, I'm enjoying my discussion/debate with David.  


It's very much still there Patrick , just the way it was in that early photograph.
The only difference is back then there weren't any trees on it so it was so much more noticeable than it is today with so many trees (and some pretty big trees) on it!
Are you even aware that a whole lot of trees can very much hide some prominent topography?  ).

I didn't know that they had planted trees on the green and in the fairway.

The latter (all the trees on it today compared to that early photo) is the reason you probably never noticed it and I frankly never had either until I saw that photograph in that article while at NGLA and for that very reason walked out of the clubhouse one morning and went up there on the top of that fairway and looked at it and then walked up to it.

I am aware of the ascending terrain as you head toward the Sebonack property.
I've been aware of it for decades and decades.
But, that area, where the land ascends is not the land in the foreground of the photos,
There is NO land which ascends that sharply anywhere near the fairway or green.
The fairway is offset, considerably from the Sebonack property and the rise in the land.

Just do it Patrick and dispense with all these hair-splitting massive multi-colored posts with all their meaningless rationalizations and directional lines and diagrams and Google Earth and such.
Unless of course just continuing to argue is all your interested in on here.
Is that all you're interested in on here Patrick? 

My real interest lies in changes to NGLA pre and post 07-06-38, the date of that wonderful aerial.

I'm also interested in seeing a new tee on # 18, back, right next to the entrance gate.
You remember, the one I wanted moved.
I'm also interested in my theory regarding the 13th hole, that CBM intended it to play as the 7th and the 11th holes at TOC.
Lastly, I'm interested in having the "road hole hotel" bunker complex returned into play vis a vis a new tee back on the raised footpad behind the current tee.

At least, that's what I'm interested in today.
That could all change tomorrow, but, I doubt it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

My measurements are correct.  Check them if you want.

I do see similarities between the 1910 photo in question and the google earth photo.

Dave, I didn't say that I DIDN'T see similarities, I do, but, I also see differences.
And as of the present time, the differences are overriding the similarities, which an onsite visit might clear up.
  
Google earth does not show terrain exactly, especially not on this tight a scale so the look will not be perfect, but the rise is definitely in the right place.   I think we are looking at two hills, one close to the 2nd fairway and one further off.  
I also think that in the 1910 photo the second fairway might have extended further up the hill.  

Again, I'm troubled by some of the slopes, some of the falls and rises in the land in proximity to the playing surfaces.

I do realize that you obviously know the course much better than I do.  
It would make no sense for me to try and convince you further when all I have to go on are the photographs and my recollection.   But I do still think it is the Sahara bunker and will be interested to see what you come up with when you next play NGLA and take a few photos from the tower.

I think your case is better made, not from up on the tower, but from lower, on the ground.
I say that because if your 1910 picture is taken from a higher elevation, it makes the hill that's part of the fairway/green even steeper and higher from ground level.

But again, I'm anxious to revisit NGLA, especially in the fall/winter when TEPaul tells me that all the leaves will be off those trees that are hiding prominent elevations changes, unseen by my foolish summer eyes.

TEPaul forgets that I can see a gorgeous set from 500 yards even though I'm faced in the opposite directon    

P.S.  do me a favor, post your Google earth, side view, with your 1910 photo below it so that the topography can be more carefully examined.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

 

Sorry! A momentary lapse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty and TEPaul,

You're both smart guys keenly interested in golf course architecture, but, you've gotten carried away with personalization.

Can I suggest that you both begin posting all over under anonymous names without refering to your alter egos or your antagonists ?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"Can I suggest that you both begin posting all over under anonymous names without refering to your alter egos or your antagonists ?  "


Pat:

I'm not having any easier a time following that than I have been following your convoluted explanations of NGLA's history recently.

[DMoriarty]

I think your case is better made, not from up on the tower, but from lower, on the ground.
I say that because if your 1910 picture is taken from a higher elevation, it makes the hill that's part of the fairway/green even steeper and higher from ground level.

But again, I'm anxious to revisit NGLA, especially in the fall/winter when TEPaul tells me that all the leaves will be off those trees that are hiding prominent elevations changes, unseen by my foolish summer eyes.

I guess it could be from the ground, but it is definitely from somewhere over near the tower.  The road in the photo makes me think its from an elevation, and also the width of the bunker from that angle.  But I guess it is possible that with a wide lens the road could still be visible even from eye level.

To me the most confusing part is that flag.  It just doesn't make sense that the green was anywhere near that flag.  And that flag doesn't look right.  For comparison sake I looked at the other photos in the article and the photos in the 1914 articles, and no flag on the green is visible in any of these photos.  Yet this one stick out like a sore thumb.   In one of the 1910 photos one of the caddies appears to be carrying a large red and white flag, presumably so that the other groups can locate them, but it doesnt look like what is in the photo.  don't even see flags on the greens that are photographed. 

Will redo google and post both pics, when I get the chance.   

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty and TEPaul,

You're both smart guys keenly interested in golf course architecture, but, you've gotten carried away with personalization.

Can I suggest that you both begin posting all over under anonymous names without refering to your alter egos or your antagonists ?

Thanks

You are right Pat, I have just had very little patience lately for your friend.   It is just that he ruins every thread that interests me and very seldom brings anything of value to the table. 

Plus he gets more and more creepy with each passing controversy.  I've asked him numerous times to never contact me except on the public threads yet he's sent me a 1/2 dozen emails in the last few days, and at least a dozen in the past few weeks.   They mostly lack content and are just to annoy, but what kind of a sick creep does that sort of thing?  If past is prologue, his emails and IMs will just become creepier and even threatening.   

His latest email (from a few hours ago) quotes one of my posts, and then he adds:

"That pretty much does it Moriarty. From here on out pretty much human nature is going to take its course."

What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?   And what kind of a psycho sends such messages. 

Should I really have to put up with being harassed on and off the website by this creepy loser?

[TEPaul]

"Will redo google and post both pics, when I get the chance."


Oh Boy, well won't the Google Earth Pics (diagrams, directional arrows and topo lines and shit) REDO just be the mystery cracker then?!?    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

A flag doesn't seem like the appropriate directional marker, especially on a hilltop swept by wind.

If you look at the angulation (?) created by the flag, from the tee, using the stairs as a landmark or flightpoint, that seems like a long carry and it doesn't look like the green is behind the directional flag, which is where it should be.

If that was the 2nd hole, I'd conclude that it is the flag for that hole based upon the distance you cited and the measurements you drew.

The area surrounding that flag sure looks like the 3rd green, especially when the flag on # 3 is in the lower left quadrant of the green, like it appears in the photo.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

I don't think posting confidential IM's or emails is in anyone's best interest.

Why don't you edit your post and remove same.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Thank you Patrick for your #291. I love you; you know that!

Now let's go on and discuss the piss outta all the reasons WHY bunker lips in 1913 at NGLA were the way they were because Mother Nature and her unpredicatable stepchildren, grass and turf and super sandy soil, were conspiring together in some way to do somebody in and/or whether Charlie actually INTENDED them to be that way at that time or any other time.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, I have seen an early photo of the fronting Alps bunker and it looks nothing like the Sahara bunker or the photo.   If I remember the photo correctly, it had a very steep grass face from the beginning (I believe the bunker at Prestwick had same or maybe RR ties around that same time.)  I'll find it and post it. 

[TEPaul]

What you need to do on here, Moriarty, before you post any more photographs of NGLA is read Patrick's post #291 and fucking deal with it.

Savy?  

[DMoriarty]

Dave,

I don't think posting confidential IM's or emails is in anyone's best interest.

Why don't you edit your post and remove same.

Thanks

Are you kidding me?  Surely TEPaul put this "privacy" notion in your head? Because only TEPaul could come up with such a convoluted and ridiculous idea where he thinks I owe him confidentiality so he can VIOLATE MY PRIVACY AND HARASS ME via private email without fear of me exposing him!   In fact, in his next uninvited and unwanted email (8:57 pm ET this evening) he pretended that he wanted me to post his email so he could try to use this against me!

Problem is, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONFIDENTIAL about an uninvited, harassing email, especially because I have repeatedly told him NEVER TO CONTACT ME VIA EMAIL or by any other means except in public, as in a public thread.    I don't deal with unstable creeps in my private life, and he's a fool if he thinks trying to disrupt my private life creates a zone of privacy for his sleaziness.  

In fact, Patrick, your sleazeball friend has no more expectation of "privacy" in this situation than if he were a drunk on the streets, banging on car windows and doors at an intersection, and trying to climb in whether the driver wanted him in or not!

Here is TEPaul's next uninvited and unwanted email, the one mentioned above and another that he had been warned against sending:

Moriarty:
 
Thank you for putting that last email I sent you on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's Discussion Group. I sent it to you simply because I wanted to see if you would actually have the total lack of commonsense to put it on this website's DG, particularly after some of the things you've said to me and about me recently (and about my family and the world I come from), and you definitely didn't disappoint me, so thanks a lot for that! That will make things a whole lot easier in the future.

So there you have it.  If we are to believe him (fat chance) I did him a favor by posting the email so he could try to use his harassment of me against me.   A win-win in his psycho world.  

Don't shill for his creepy game, Patrick.  You know as well as I do that unwanted, harassing email is not private, especially when he was repeatedly warned not to contact me.  Plus, he cant pretend it he expected it to be private because he now claims he wanted me to post it!  

[DMoriarty]

What you need to do on here, Moriarty, before you post any more photographs of NGLA is read Patrick's post #291 and fucking deal with it.

Savy?  

I am dealing with it, you psycho, and I will continue to deal with it as I see fit.

Savy?

[TEPaul]

Like most on here, Moriarty, I think it is really sad you put that last post on this discussion board, particularly after being asked by a guy who heretofore has appeared to support you on here (Pat Mucci) to remove your last post that did the same thing that was not meant to be on this discussion board but to be a private "off line" communication.

If attempts to deal with our issues "off-line" are EVER put on here to embarrass one or the other parties then there may be no way at all for any of us to deal with or communicate our differences or resolve them "off-line" without them ending up on here where no one seems to want them. In this particular way you are as completely weak and irresponsible as Tom MacWood once was over Pine Valley when he put a private email from me to him on that issue on this discussion board where he KNEW it was never intended to be.

Essentially that kind of thing should just not ever be done on this website---not EVER, and the fact is the only two people who have ever violated that commonsensical and logic ethic and etiquette, to my knowledge, is you and MacWood. What does that say? What does that say about you two?

I rest my case about you on here.  Truly!

[Sean Arble]

Pat

I understand Notre Dame is struggling this year, but does it cause so much stress as to effect your thinking?

ND's 6-3 record has neither caused me stress nor affected my thinking. 


Have you ever seen sand, not top dressing applied by green keepers in a regimented and purposeful manner, blowing about on a course. 

NO, not in any meaningful amount.
But, then again, I've only been playing golf for 55+ years at a number of courses

Could you cite five courses in America where this is occuring on a regular basis ?

Typical greenside and fairway bunkers contain limited amounts of sand.
A bunker with dimensions of 10 yards by 15 yards probably contains less than 25 c/yds
If the ENTIRE bunker was emptied and the sand dispursed by the winds the impact to a significant area would be minimal.

Some areas may get a foot of the stuff -

You're hallucinating.

Let's see if I understand this, a bunker with dimensions, say of 10 yds by 15 yds with sand to a depth of 6", with less than 25 c/yds is going to somehow dump a foot of sand on the surrounding turf, and the same wind that took that sand out of the bunker and deposited it to a depth of one foot is not going to further dispurse that pile of sand any further, throughout the property, is that right ? 

Could you cite five courses in America where this condition exists on a regular basis ?

And, when it does, do they VACUUM all of the sand and put it back in the bunker, or, does a good deal of the sand, the residue, remain as a form of topdressing ?

Face it, you don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

I bet they don't roll at 13 you dope. 


I bet this condition doesn't exist except in your uninformed mind.
Could you cite 5 courses where the sand is regularly blown from the greenside bunkers, up onto the greens, to a depth of one foot ?

Are you starting to get the picture now? 


Sure, but, it's a figment of your imagination.

This isn't tough stuff Pat, but when you want to play games it can drag on needlessly. 

What I'm not doing is fabricating a condition known only to you.
A condition that would have us believe that sand is conveniently removed out of a bunker, by high winds, in an orderly fashion and conveniently dumped onto that green to a depth of one foot, without the sand on the green being blown elsewhere by that same wind.

Do the words, "fairy tale" ring true ?

Have you found a super yet who wants to allow nature to top dress their course rather than the green keepers?

That was never an issue, that was a distorted fabrication you made up.
I stated that wind blown sand is no different than top dressing with sand, other than consistency, and that it does no harm to the turf, and further, that sand splash probably puts more sand on greens than the wind, and no harm is done to those greens either.

Face it, you're out of your element on this topic, and the only way you can save face is through fabrication and distortion. 

Jeepers, there is stubborn and  obtuse, then there is Patrick Mucci.  Lord save us.


Stubborn I am, but, I'm not disengenuous.
And, I'd rather be stubborn than disengenuous.

Patrick

Disengenuous?  Your brain has gone into complete meltdown with ND's loss to Navy. 

If you paid attention to my posts on this thread you would notice that sand containment was what I am on about.  This is why I suspect bunkers have changed from the more attractive natural look to a more formalized look.  Its easier to maintain sand in a pit then it is spread out over here and there.  Do you think this could be a reason blowing sand isn't much of a problem?

I think your height combined with riding that high horse has messed with your oxygen supply.  Why don't you climb down once in a while and get re-adjusted? 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Let's make sure we all understand what you are saying here:    

You think that I am bound to keep your creepy, harassing, and threatening emails private, thus enabling you to continue to harass me?  And you believe this despite the fact that I have told you repeatedly NOT TO CONTACT ME PRIVATELY?  And despite the fact that I have told you in the past that I do not consider your uncivil, harassing, and threatening messages private?

This is exactly what you are saying, isn't it?   Otherwise, why would did you send me three more emails since I posted the first one? Surely you know the emails are uninvited and unwelcome, yet you keep sending them.

Your dishonesty and/or delusion becomes obvious when you dare claim that you were trying to resolve "our issues off-line."  You were sending me creepy messages.   You've sent me six messages today alone, and none of them had a thing to do with working out our issues, and I did not respond to any of them.  In fact my only responses to the many messages you have sent over the past month has been to occasionally tell you to stop, like I did two days ago and in mid October.  Yet your creepy messages keep coming.  

Consider your third of six messages today, all sent despite the fact that you know damn well I don't want you contacting me.  You quoted a post then wrote:  

"That pretty much does it Moriarty. From here on out pretty much human nature is going to take its course."

That is no effort to "resolve our issues."  To the contrary, it is bizarre and creepy and even threatening, although I doubt even you understand what the hell it means.

Bottom line, you creep; if you continue to harass me or threaten or even contact me by email or any way outside of a public forum, I will continue to expose you as the sleazy, out-of-control scumbag that you have become.  

If you don't like it, take it up with Ran.  But don't forget to explain that you continue to harass me of the site despite the fact I have repeatedly told you to stop.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Disengenuous?  Your brain has gone into complete meltdown with ND's loss to Navy. 

Your attempts to deflect and divert the issue and avoid answering the questions I've posed to you are reaching desperate levels.


If you paid attention to my posts on this thread you would notice that sand containment was what I am on about.  This is why I suspect bunkers have changed from the more attractive natural look to a more formalized look.  Its easier to maintain sand in a pit then it is spread out over here and there.  Do you think this could be a reason blowing sand isn't much of a problem?

I've paid attention to your posts and challenged your contentions by asking you a number of questions, all of which you've avoided and failed to answer.

Just answer the questions.

For starters, would you cite for us, five clubs where sand blows out of the greenside bunkers and deposits a foot of sand on the green ?

I think your height combined with riding that high horse has messed with your oxygen supply.  Why don't you climb down once in a while and get re-adjusted? 

You're wasting everyone's time with these foolish attempts to divert and deflect the issue and the questions posed to you.
You made statements that I challenged, and you appear to be incapable of answering those questions.
One can only conclude that your statements weren't fact based, but rather a product of your imagination.

ND's losing to Pitt, CT and Stanford won't change the issue, nor will it dull my efforts to get you to answer the questions I posed, answers which you don't have, for if you had them, rather than citing ND, you would have provided cogent responses instead of babbling about ND and other non-germane issues.

Alternatively, you can just admit that you were wrong and spoke/typed without knowing or realizing what you were saying/typing.

I know how difficult admitting you're wrong is, but I have every confidence that you can do it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

If you really want to stop receiving emails from someone, just BLOCK the sender's email address.

Why continue to accept emails from someone if you don't want them ?

Both of you are behaving like children, in an ugly fashion.

Both of you are intelligent, interested in architecture and active posters on this site.
The site is better due to your participation, but, this bitter bickering is a waste of time.
I understand being passionate to the degree that you become invested in a topic or position, but not to the degree that you villify each other.

Stop already, block TEPaul's email address and get back on the subject at hand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

You have to admit that the land form surrounding the black flag and in front of the American Flag Pole looks a great deal like the 3rd green.

[Bryan Izatt]

Perhaps part of the problem of looking at the picture is that the perspective appears distorted because it appears to have been taken from above the bunker (maybe from up the water tower).  If you correct the perspective, the hill in back and the slope of the fairway to the bunker look less dramatic.

It appears from Google Earth that the ridge with trees to the right of the fairway is 10 feet above the fairway, while the parking lot at Sebonac is as much as 40 feet (and probably more before it was flattened for the parking lot) above the fairway.

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

The large majority of what you are calling my creepy and harrassing emails to you are nothing other than simple cut and pastes of your insulting posts on here---nothing at all more than that. I did not add a single word to the majority of them so if you view all those emails of your posts on here as creepy then perhaps you need to consider what is creepy on here. It was my hope that if I just cut and pasted your posts into emails to you and added nothing else you may begin to recognize just how insulting some of your posts really are. But apparently not even that worked to resolve this. Oh well.  

[Sean Arble]

Patrick

Disengenuous?  Your brain has gone into complete meltdown with ND's loss to Navy. 

Your attempts to deflect and divert the issue and avoid answering the questions I've posed to you are reaching desperate levels.


If you paid attention to my posts on this thread you would notice that sand containment was what I am on about.  This is why I suspect bunkers have changed from the more attractive natural look to a more formalized look.  Its easier to maintain sand in a pit then it is spread out over here and there.  Do you think this could be a reason blowing sand isn't much of a problem?

I've paid attention to your posts and challenged your contentions by asking you a number of questions, all of which you've avoided and failed to answer.

Just answer the questions.

For starters, would you cite for us, five clubs where sand blows out of the greenside bunkers and deposits a foot of sand on the green ?

I think your height combined with riding that high horse has messed with your oxygen supply.  Why don't you climb down once in a while and get re-adjusted? 

You're wasting everyone's time with these foolish attempts to divert and deflect the issue and the questions posed to you.
You made statements that I challenged, and you appear to be incapable of answering those questions.
One can only conclude that your statements weren't fact based, but rather a product of your imagination.

ND's losing to Pitt, CT and Stanford won't change the issue, nor will it dull my efforts to get you to answer the questions I posed, answers which you don't have, for if you had them, rather than citing ND, you would have provided cogent responses instead of babbling about ND and other non-germane issues.

Alternatively, you can just admit that you were wrong and spoke/typed without knowing or realizing what you were saying/typing.

I know how difficult admitting you're wrong is, but I have every confidence that you can do it.

Heavy sigh Pat.  You should sue ND for issuing a degree to a chap with such poor reading comprehension.  For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  Eventually you will get over the ND loss and fully comprehend your argument is about as useless as the ND defense. 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I must admit....I continue to get a kick off ND fans who remain in denial about Charlie Weis's mediocrity.  Now that they have run out of excuses of this being a certain ex-coaches team, I wonder what is next?   

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I have been ignoring most of TEPaul’s creepy emails and messages for years now.  On a few occasions I respond to remind him that I want him to stop, but for most part I pay little or no attention to the content of his emails.  While blocking TEPaul’s messages seems simple enough, I don’t think it makes sense here. The problem isn’t that I get the messages; it is that he sends them.    Obviously TEPaul has some serious problems and needs professional help.   While blocking the messages may make me ignorant of the degree of his instability, it will not make him any more stable or any less threatening. So I won’t block his messages.  But I have started keeping an accurate record of any and all unwanted harassment, especially his attempts to create an unacceptable or inappropriate disturbance in my personal or private life.   

After all, it is not as if TEPaul is some anonymous spammer.   He is a bitter and unstable creep who has been threatening and harassing me in public and private for YEARS.  And lately he seems even less able to control himself, and seems to be losing his ability for rational thought.  See for example his belief that he is entitled to harass me without me exposing him for it, and his delusion that his harassment resolve our problems, despite that I have demanded he STOP.   Or the fact that even now, I have publicly demanded that he STOP, he continues.

Look, Patrick, I understand this puts you and others in an uncomfortable position because you have some sort of private relationship with this creep, and it is always easier to ignore these things rather than deal I with them.   But ignoring his problems and his increasingly unstable behavior is doing him no favors.  He needs help, and soon. It is undeniable that he has no respect for (or concept of) the bounds of appropriate behavior, that he has little or no self control, and that he is unable to understand or accept that his actions have consequences.   Together this makes for a volatile combination.

Look at his latest rationalization . . .
 
The large majority of what you are calling my creepy and harrassing emails to you are nothing other than simple cut and pastes of your insulting posts on here---nothing at all more than that. I did not add a single word to the majority of them so if you view all those emails of your posts on here as creepy then perhaps you need to consider what is creepy on here. It was my hope that if I just cut and pasted your posts into emails to you and added nothing else you may begin to recognize just how insulting some of your posts really are. But apparently not even that worked to resolve this. Oh well.

Just another effort to avoid responsibility for his actions, but he might actually believe it!  If so, then he cannot even comprehend why I find the messages creepy and inappropriate; or that it doesn’t matter that only some of his most recent emails contain actual threats; or that the fact that he continues to send his bizarre messages (six times yesterday) despite my many demands that he STOP is in and of itself is extremely creepy.  And what kind of a psycho cuts and pastes his own posts and mine and sends them, interspersing them with an occasional threat?   

This isn’t a one-time thing or a simple misunderstanding.  It is an ongoing issue and a continuing pattern of behavior with TEPaul.  A few months ago it was his sleazy and barely veiled threatening messages daring me to come to Philadelphia so he and his buddies could teach me a thing or two.   Before that there were the multiple times he told me that he wouldn’t rest until he drove me from the website.  And the promises to continue to harass me – by whatever means he wanted -- until I was gone from the website for good.  And the “Philadelphia Possee.”  And the lies about the Canadian “scholar.’   And the lies about Merion’s committee chairs supposed thoughts on my early research. And the defamatory rumors about things entirely unrelated to this website. And numerous other inappropriate and threatening messages and comments designed to chase me away.  And similar behavior directed to others. 

I am here to discuss golf courses, but that shouldn’t entail having to put up with harassment from an unstable creep who cannot control himself.
_____________________________________________

A few more passages from earlier this year, this time IM’s edited to only show my requests to be left alone and his responses:

"TomPaul,
Please stop contacting me.  I have no interest in communicating with you."

I couldn't possibly care less what you have no interest in! . . . I think you need my constant and personal attention.

"Don't contact me again Tom."

Or What?

"No more messages Tom.  I mean it."

Or what?

Come on tell me; I actually love threats from the likes of the David Moriarty's of life. . .

 

[TEPaul]

"or that the fact that he continues to send his bizarre messages (six times yesterday)"


The so-called bizarre messages that you speak of above from me (emails) contain nothing more than your own posts from this thread. It was my hope that if I simply cut and pasted YOUR posts about me back to you by email you might begin to get some idea of how insulting, and, yes, sort of creepy THEY are  , all filled with such remarks as 'scumbag', 'creep', 'psycho', 'sick.' Your post just above this one is just another example in a long list of examples of that which I should also cut and paste and send by email to you, again in the hope that you might better appreciate what YOU are saying on this website. I may not agree with much of what you say on here about architecture or architects but at least I'm not calling you things on this DG like scumbag, creep, psycho, sick and such. I may have insulted you personally a bit that way in the past but I don't do that anymore on this DG and I don't plan to. All I'm going to do is criticize what you say about architecture or architects if it seems warranted. I suggest the same for you. That's why I sent you those emails which were not much more than your own increasing string of insulting and bizarre remarks on here, and not about what I say about architecture or architects but about just me.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

If you don't want to be called a scumbag, a creep, and a psycho, then you need quit acting like one.  You have been harassing me and threatening me for years.  Even now, you pretend your behavior is okay because only some of your creepy, uninvited and unwanted attempts to harass me contain weird threats and such.  Did you forget yesterday already?  

 You need to get some help, Tom.  But whether you get help or not, DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO CONTACT ME IN ANYTHING BUT A PUBLIC FORUM, YOU PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Heavy sigh Pat.  You should sue ND for issuing a degree to a chap with such poor reading comprehension.  

For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  

That's NOT what you said.
This is what you said:

 Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.

To which I responded:
"Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?
Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?[/b][/color]


And, to date, despite all your attempts to divert and deflect the issue, you've avoided answering the question.

Understanding that desperate men do desperate things, you've gone off in wild directions hoping that mentioning ND football will serve as a decoy, allowing you to escape the burden of having to answer the question/s, but, as you pointed out, a stubborn person isn't going to let you off the hook.

So, please, just answer the question.

And, while you're at it, explain how sand deposited on the green, whether it be by sand splash or sand blown by the wind, produce different agronomic and playing results.

It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  


You said it piles up to ONE FOOT, not 1/4 of an inch.
Would you care to admit that you embellished your facts a little ?

Eventually you will get over the ND loss and fully comprehend your argument is about as useless as the ND defense.  


You've obviously never been to an ND game.
Everyone likes winning, but, ND is gracious when they lose.
Perhaps you missed the ND players going to the Navy section with the Navy players and singing the NAVY Alma Mater after the game.
That's just part of the "Spirit of Notre Dame" that you and other detractors know nothing about.

Below is what the team, students and fans sing at the conclusion of every home game.
Fans who don't leave the stadium, fans who stay to support and celebrate the team and the university.
Pay attention to the last sentence and understand that your petty comments can't change anything, and they certainly can't diminish the "Spirit of Notre Dame", but then again, you wouldn't have a clue as to what I'm refering to.


Notre Dame, our Mother
Tender, strong and true
Proudly in the heavens,
Gleams thy gold and blue.
Glory's mantle cloaks thee
Golden is thy fame,
And our hearts forever,
Praise thee, Notre Dame.
And our hearts forever,
Love thee, Notre Dame.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMomkAJMDo

There's nothing quite like it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I must admit....I continue to get a kick off ND fans who remain in denial about Charlie Weis's mediocrity. 
Now that they have run out of excuses of this being a certain ex-coaches team, I wonder what is next?   

I never knew that a 6-3 (66.66 %) record was deemed to be mediocre.

I know it's not up to the all time record for Major College Football programs, held by Rockne (881 %) and Leahy (864 %), but heh, this is his first year with his players.

What I'm also puzzled about is how the Weis detractors, those who diminish his coaching abilities, choose to ignore his coaching record with the Patriots when he was their offensive co-ordinator.

Was he mediocre then, or did he just become mediocre when he arrived in South Bend and went 9-2 in his first season ?

There's always been a jealousy issue with ND that comes in many forms, and I guess yours is just another form.
There are those who want Weis and ND to fail, not understanding the positive underlying values that ND brings to college sports.

So rail away, vent your jealousy if it makes you feel better, it won't have the slightest negative impact on ND or true ND fans.

I liked what the Memphis coach (ex coach), Tommy West, had to say today.
What he hoped for, what he sought, in terms of team support, for him and for the next coach, was everything that true ND fans are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

YIKES.

Returning to the picture you posted, look at the man dressed in white stradling the bunker.
Then, look at how the land, either fairway and/or green slopes severly up behind him.
Actually to his right, our left and back.

The land continues to slope upwards where the fairway and/or green meets the rough line.

Then the rough continues to slope steeply upwards.

Tell me, WHERE, anywhere west of the windmill where the terrain matches your photo.

It doesn't.

There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

YIKES.

If you were in my position I am sure you would understand exactly where I am coming from on this one.

. . .
There's nothing remotely like it on top of that hill/fairway directly across from the Windmill.

Patrick, I think the best thing to do is for you just to go look at it, when you get the chance.  I know, at trip to NGLA is a tough assignment.

I understand what you are saying, but don't know that I agree.   I think we may be looking at two hills, one behind the other with the second one about where Sebonack's parking lot is now.  I think the fairway was cut wider then, partially up the first up slope.   It makes sense to me that the flagpole (US Flag) would be on or near the highpoint of the property, so I assume that the flag is near the top of the first rise.

Here is the photo and a google earth view underneath.  You can make out the first hill (slightly darker) and the second.   The second is a slightly different shape, but as Bryan noted that land has likely been leveled for Sebonack's parking lot.

[Sean Arble]

Heavy sigh Pat.  You should sue ND for issuing a degree to a chap with such poor reading comprehension.  

For the last time, I am saying that sand isn't often a problem these days because bunkers are designed to contain the sand even at the expense of aesthetic issues.  

That's NOT what you said.
This is what you said:

 Sand blowing on greens and fairways is not clever in terms of keeping that grass alive.

To which I responded:
"Why do you feel that sand blown on fairways and greens isn't good for the grass ?
Isn't that what top-dressing is all about ?[/b][/color]


And, to date, despite all your attempts to divert and deflect the issue, you've avoided answering the question.

Understanding that desperate men do desperate things, you've gone off in wild directions hoping that mentioning ND football will serve as a decoy, allowing you to escape the burden of having to answer the question/s, but, as you pointed out, a stubborn person isn't going to let you off the hook.

So, please, just answer the question.

And, while you're at it, explain how sand deposited on the green, whether it be by sand splash or sand blown by the wind, produce different agronomic and playing results.

It is more than obvious that free blowing sand could pile up much higher than a 1/4 or so inch levels which is what top dressing does.  


You said it piles up to ONE FOOT, not 1/4 of an inch.
Would you care to admit that you embellished your facts a little ?

Eventually you will get over the ND loss and fully comprehend your argument is about as useless as the ND defense.  


You've obviously never been to an ND game.
Everyone likes winning, but, ND is gracious when they lose.
Perhaps you missed the ND players going to the Navy section with the Navy players and singing the NAVY Alma Mater after the game.
That's just part of the "Spirit of Notre Dame" that you and other detractors know nothing about.

Below is what the team, students and fans sing at the conclusion of every home game.
Fans who don't leave the stadium, fans who stay to support and celebrate the team and the university.
Pay attention to the last sentence and understand that your petty comments can't change anything, and they certainly can't diminish the "Spirit of Notre Dame", but then again, you wouldn't have a clue as to what I'm refering to.


Notre Dame, our Mother
Tender, strong and true
Proudly in the heavens,
Gleams thy gold and blue.
Glory's mantle cloaks thee
Golden is thy fame,
And our hearts forever,
Praise thee, Notre Dame.
And our hearts forever,
Love thee, Notre Dame.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMomkAJMDo

There's nothing quite like it.

Patrick

Now, now.  You are the one who introduced the completely inconsequential question of why isn't free blowing sand good for turf.  I rightly answered that free blowing sand is nothing like top dressing, because unlike free blowing sand, top dressing is measured and purposely directed.  Because you fail to understand this point has no bearing on my original premise - which was, perhaps the shapes of bunkers have changed on windy sites to better contain sand.  Despite your best attempts to intimate that free blowing sand, which could pile up to 1 foot on greens or fairways (I saw it more like 3 feet once on a green and much higher on a fairway) is somehow good for the turf because it somehow does precisely what top dressing achieves, I don't believe it.  Please focus on the original premise.  While you are at it, instead of bickering constantly about why free blowing sand on a course is good or about the location of a bunker, why don't you put forward your own thoughts on why NGLA's (and in general sea side courses) bunkers have changed?   

Ciao