The Bunkering at The National

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe either one of us has felt the need to say "I told you so" once.   But why do you feel the need to disrupt our conversation with your repetitious  "I told you so" posts?  Quoting yourself from a few days ago?  Telling us over and over again how you noticed the land over there was higher years ago?  Are you that insecure that you can't even allow a conversation without repeatedly announcing that you think you knew it all already?"


No, I'm not in the slightest bit insecure about any of this. Insecurity has nothing at all to do with any of this. I just thought I could explain something to you both that I actually specifically did and looked at on that particular hole and help you both out in understanding it because it happens to be the very same specific subject you and Pat are discussing or arguing about or whatever the hell you two think you are doing with all these muliti-colored text posts with all these diagrams and directional arrows and Google Earth analyses. 

Apparently not, so you and Pat should feel totally free, at least on my account, to knock yourselves out, just the two of you, for the next two months or 20 more pages on here on this issue.  

[DMoriarty]

Again your fallacious access = knowledge nonsense?   And in a thread where you agree with my analysis 100%?   Give us all a break, Tom. There are other ways to learn things than by wandering aimlessly.

[TEPaul]

“As for your your side snide comments on agronomy, I am no expert but it would seem that what one used for top dressing would depend upon what one was trying to accomplish.

But as I said, I am no expert on agronomy like you apparently think you are, but it seems to me that one would have to understand the soil conditions before one could make broad pronouncements about whether straight sand would be a good idea or not.”



I’m definitely no expert at all on golf agronomy; never have been. Matter of fact, I’ve said many times and to many people including whole clubs that golf agronomy scares the shit outta me. I actually say that three things scare the shit outta me---cooking, sailing and golf course agronomy. And then after the appropriate pause I say: “Actually four things scare the shit outta me---the fourth being those beautiful and charming Southern belles who have that unique type of Southern wit that can cut you to the quick.”

But even though golf agronomy does scare me, over the years I’ve had enough experience with it to know the basics and fundamentals and when I have any specific questions on it I do have about seventy five superintendents in my cell phone who I can call and ask about anything specifically.

As for you on the subject of the evolution of the golf agronomy of NGLA, my advice to you would be to depend a bit more on the ideas and opinions of Bradley Anderson who I think arguably may have the best working knowledge on this site and perhaps anywhere of all things to do with the history of both golf agronomy, the history of golf architecture construction machinery, the history of golf irrigation, the history of golf course maintenance and its numerous types of maintenance equipment over time. Matter of fact, I had about a half hour conversation about many of those very things just this morning.

Apparently you didn't know that or just don't appreciate it as much as you probably should. The same probably goes for Patrick with Bradley Anderson and his opinions on the history of the turf of NGLA but I think we all know there is nothing in the world that Patrick doesn't know or thinks he knows.   

[TEPaul]

"Again your fallacious access = knowledge nonsense?"


Moriarty:

It has nothing whatsoever to do with access. All any of this has to do with is since we discuss the things we do on here with people who have more experience in certain things than others of us do when it comes to certain places or courses or people or subjects it is probably a pretty good idea in those discussions to depend on those experiences and on the people who have them on here. In some areas some of us have a lot more experience than others do and I guess it can be true to say that some of us who've been around some of these clubs we discuss just about all our lives arguably have a lot more experience with then and consequently knowledge about them than others on here do. In my opinion, there is no reason at all for any of us to get aggressive or adverserial or argumentative or insecure about any of that. After-all we are just discussing these things and these courses and to do that well obviously experience and knowledge is a primary currency to be able to do it well.

You're the one who keeps bringing up this thing about "access---knowledge" to me on practically every thread, so talk about insecure! It's definitely not me who's insecure about access or my life long experiences with certain clubs and courses and people we discuss all the time on this website (some of the very same courses and people you seem so interested in and in learning about, or so you say  ) but it sure seems like that (access) is one of your inherent problems and insecurities on this website.

Some years ago, you wanted to get access to play Maidstone. So who did you call? How ironic is that when you say to me what you just did and do all the time on here about the subject of "access."  

[DMoriarty]

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:  Some of the bunkers were Intended to be wild looking with sand faces; Others were intended to be sand faces but with a less rugged edge; and, Some initially had grass faces.

So your suggestion that I defer to him on the issue is nonsense.  Had I done so we'd all know less about how the early bunkers at NGLA than we now do.  This is true even of Bradley, I think.

As for your droning on about all you think you know about these places, it to is equally nonsense.   You've you may have played these courses for 50 years but by your own admission you didn't give a damn or even pay the least bit of attention to the architecture for the first 40 years! That alone speaks volumes about your self-centered approach and your general obliviousness to everything else.   Plus, you can't know any more about the beginnings of these places than many of us because you weren't there then; in fact you demonstrate again and again that you know less because you let your pompous ramblings, preconceived notions, and blind acceptance of old legends keep you from learning anything new.

As for your again bringing up the Maidstone thing it really demonstrates what a creep you really are.  What kind of a pompous jackass would try to twist such a thing for leverage six or seven years after the fact?  You are far worse than any access whore on here; you are an access pimp, constantly leveraging your status and connections for whatever purposes you choose.  Do you think anyone would want anything to do with your nonsense if it weren't for your connections?  If you do you are even more delusional than I think you are.  

Speaking of delusional, you are that about the Maidstone thing.  My invitation to play Maidstone had absolutely nothing to do with you.  I contacted you because I had lost the phone number of the gentleman who had invited me, and I knew you knew him.  Jesus, had I known you'd lord it over me for over half a decade, I'd have called information.  Let this be a warning to all; even the smallest favor from TEPaul and he'll hold it over you forever. As if everyone didn't know that already . . .

Anyway, your twisting of the incident speaks volumes about both your memory and your true nature, that is for sure.



    

[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_A]

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.