next »

[Kelly Blake Moran]

"We all wanted to see CBM's grave. The pissing on the grave thing was just a joke, nothing more, certainly nothing like that actually happened;

When we went to the old Yankee stadium, my oldest son, a Red Sox fan, spit in his hands and rubbed the face of the Babe statue in monument park...he didn't know I was watching him from afar.

[DMoriarty]

What should you do if you feel that you are constantly bullied, ridiculed and attacked from a certain corner? What if there seems to develop a sport of taking cheap shots at practically anything you say, no matter what it is or how you say it? Two things you need to do:

1. Ignore it. Don't grace idiots with your attention. Never respond, never react.

If you manage to do that (make no mistake: it's tough), but the bullying and cheap shots continue all the same, then:

2. Trust that others will defend you. People aren't stupid. They realise who the bully is. Make sure it's not you.

Ulrich

Good advice Ulrich, especially the first point.  As to point two, I agree that people aren't stupid, but this is probably the reason almost everyone will continue to keep their head down no matter how badly TEPaul behaves.  You may not have been here for some of his past escapades, but my guess is that most people have seen the treatment that those who cross TEPaul receive, and few are willing to risk that.   Plus there is the unmentionable but always present access issue, which Anthony nailed in his post above.
_______________________________________________

Discouraging, yes.  Sad, yes.  You two have a bad case of co-dependency going on.  I, for one, don't see either of you ever getting off the merry-go-round.  Sad, but true.      

Interesting theory, but I'm not seeing it from my end.   I want to discuss the history of golf course design in America.  TEPaul makes that nearly impossible.  Frankly the best thing for me would be if he finally lived up to one of these ultimatums he periodically gives Ran about leaving the site if Ran won't throw me off.   Do you remember how smooth and productive the Merion conversation became after he announced he was leaving the site, and disappeared for a short time?   I sure do.   It was nice.
_________________________________

I think the point of arguing is mainly to influence the opinion of the audience. So the opponents can go at it hammer and tong and never concede anything to each other. It doesn't matter. So really it isn't personal at all if your opponent never agrees with you.

Bradley,  I agree with this for the most part.    I am certainly not trying to convince TEPaul of anything.   But the unfortunate consequence of the constant vitriol is that it becomes impossible to communicate ideas or have a conversation.   The threads become so ugly and so weighed down by crap that the goal of communicating with a broader audience is curtailed.

Unfortunately, very often this has been exactly TEPaul's goal-- to shut down the communication, and to stop the message from getting out.  He doesn't want his old legends challenged and rather than try to address the substance, he attacks the messenger and generally mucks stuff up until the whole thing becomes an illegible mess.  So it is a win-win for him.   Either people steer clear of topics within what he considers his domain, or he will so screw up the channels of communication that no message will get across anyway.
__________________________________________________

I had not read one post on that CBM thread until tonight.. and took the tep challenge to read #425. but not before some of the earlier ones to get some perspective.. now I understand Joe's lament

franky, tep as good as #425 is, you should really apologize for #403.

Honestly, post 403 is pretty polite for TEPaul, in fact he emailed Ran almost exactly the same thing, along with his latest demand that I be thrown off the website.  But that post may be worth noting because it highlights the undercurrent to all of this . . . . TEPaul isn't just rude and belligerent toward some of us, he is actively trying to run some of us off the website, and has been for years.   Here is what he wrote on the subject a few days ago (my emphasis) . .  

. . .
Frankly Wayne and I speak with one another regularly, like every other day, and Wayne Morrison, in my book, is right on the money with what goes on with this website with a few participants such as you and Moriarty. This website has a future but some winnowing out is going to have to happen first. My vote is for you to stay if you can get your act together, and for me to stay if I get my act together which I think I fairly have in the last year but this Moriarty has fucked up this website far worse than anyone else ever has in its ten year history and he should be bounced.

I've made my feelings known about that to Morrissett and I had the good sense to copy Moriarty on it (Moriarty's response is definitely recordable and indicative if one really wants to see what an hysterical jerk is about). There is not room on this website for me and a person like Moriatry. Ran can make that decision, no problem with me and I gurantee you I both can and will live with it!

I've had a long and good run on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com so we'll just see what the future holds for it. As everyone knows----The World Turns!  

A "winnowing out" is what this is all about, because we disagree.  His post 423 is just a quick adjustment to distract attention from his own behavior.

____________________________________

Bill,  I am still curious as to how your "grill room" guidelines would deal with someone who behaves like TEPaul?

___________________________________

As for whether the detailed story of Wayne pissing on the grave of Charles B. Macdonald, Seth Raynor and or H.J. Whigham was a joke, I have my doubts.   It wasn't just one post, but a whole series of them, over time.  There was even talk of a photograph.   It was never presented as a joke until others pointed out just how poorly it reflected on those involved, and as those involved realized how horrible this might look as these guys try to push their agendas with the USGA.    

But suppose it was a joke?  It makes no difference to me.  I don't know that publicly pretending to have pissed on someone's grave is all that much different that actually doing it.   Either way, the story says quite a lot about those both the subject of the "joke" and the person who repeatedly told the story.  

[TEPaul]

"When we went to the old Yankee stadium, my oldest son, a Red Sox fan, spit in his hands and rubbed the face of the Babe statue in monument park...he didn't know I was watching him from afar."


Kelly:

Yep, in that case, he is definitely a card carrying Red Sox fan!    But what does he think about the "Red Sox Curse" (trading The Babino)?

[TEPaul]

Your Honor, I present Post #106 as evidence, and I rest my case!    

[JMEvensky]

"We all wanted to see CBM's grave. The pissing on the grave thing was just a joke, nothing more, certainly nothing like that actually happened;

When we went to the old Yankee stadium, my oldest son, a Red Sox fan, spit in his hands and rubbed the face of the Babe statue in monument park...he didn't know I was watching him from afar.

I assume you immediately cut him out of the will?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Your Honor, I present Post #106 as evidence, and I rest my case!    

If only you would everyone would be happier. (Humour? )

 If you stopped posting so much you might reflect on what people are trying to say directly to YOU on this thread.  PS you might not be getting it but the evidence is that more and more participants are.

Please address this post.

Hasn't about half the bandwidth of this website's DG turned into a forum for general complaining (people, things, whatever etc) and now moral complaining?

Ran Morrissett ought to rename this website GeneralComplaintsAtlas.com!

Tom,

It appears you'd like to take my initial post and turn it around on me. That's OK, I can handle it. But, let me ask you in all sincerity; Was my initial post to start this thread out of line, or was it valid? I understand you can only answer from your perspective, but I'd like to hear it anyway.

Thanks,

Joe

[Bill_McBride]

David says "Bill,  I am still curious as to how your "grill room" guidelines would deal with someone who behaves like TEPaul?"

Well, for starters, face to face, you two would be across the table in each others faces and the others present plus a couple of waiters would separate you and you would each be asked to leave.  If you chose to continue the mayhem in the parking lot, that would be up to you.

Nobody could talk across a table for long the way you two talk to each other -- yes, you can be corrosive too -- without fisticuffs coming next.

Also, at some point the staff throws out even those homeless members so you wouldn't be able to stay up all night yammering at each other the way you do now via the computer.

Serious question:  do you two have any idea how ridiculous you appear to the other members of this group after six years of this stuff?

I suspect not.  And that's sad.  It's relatively easy to ignore and avoid the obvious 100 page threads, but now you are slipping into threads like this at every opportunity.

[Anthony Gray]

 Bradley writes:

We don't have to make GCA into a forum where no one ever straps it on, or pokes fun at an opponent, because those are legitimate forms of arguement in the highest expression of the art. Yes, sometimes it crosses the line, but where do you draw the line? I think when it gets off topic, and slanderous. But otherwise I think you have to let men argue in their own way. If they get stupid they only hurt their own case.

I've been reading this thread and the Kavanaugh proxy thread.  Having been a long time participant in GCA.com, with enough of my own transgressions into the O.T. political debates, and attempts to be humorous and falling short, or just falling short on matters of GCA in general, I'd like to think I haven't crossed the line of slander or character assassination, but have argued in my own way on some matters with conviction as a man of thoughts and rights to say/believe certain things.  If you think I've crossed a line with you, I'm sorry.

It is best when the community reigns a member in when comments get out of line, by calling them out as a foul, I think.  But, when that fails ( as some tedious and bloated otherwise private arguement threads have done) and character or reputation is maligned, the big censor hammer should fall, I believe.

IMHO, JK did cross lines and was banned for it.  And, in the Merion, Pine Valley and McD threads it was overt and distasteful and I think a consensus of the GCA.com community would say those exchanges crossed lines of merely spirited debate.  Yes, I think men do argue in their own way, and they own it when they do, to the expense of their own reputations with others in the community.  Sometimes, an authority who governs or 'owns' the community forum needs to enforce a censorship or ban when the expressions exceed the line of standards the general community or 'owner' finds unacceptable and diminishes the community's standing as a whole.  

I'm really conflicted about this whole Anthony Gray proxy to John Kavanaugh Q&A.   I am very much in agreement with the sentiments of some who say AG had overstepped his place by subverting the "owner's" ban on JK's further involvement.  I think that is correct.  Yet, I also recognise by reading these proxy answers to GCA questions of JK, that we all might miss that part of him that is keen of mind, very eloquent with his observations on the subject, and has enough wit and humor when channeled properly, to be a benefit and entertainment to all of us.  In my mind, this is a real dillema.  

Personally, I'm a big enough boy to take some witty digs about my beliefs, and often they make me re-think things (and I enjopy to give same).  JK did get really under my skin a few times, but those times wouldn't have gotten me in such a fit as to ask he be banned.  However, he DID so to others and exceeded THE LINE!  Why, would he be that nasty, I just don't know.  

As for the participants in the other Merion, PV, McD diatribes, they should have gotten "owner community/suspensions" years ago when they crossed those lines of character assasination and basic ugliness of comment.  They went beyond "men arguing in their own way", and spirited debate of the parlimentarian style Bradley observed above.  Not merely my call here, but way too many of the community tried to admonish them, or call them back to the dog pound, when they got rabid on eachother.  Yet, they persisted, and though didn't get themselves "banned/suspended", (although, even imposed their own suspensions only to return and go back at it).  And, their continued obsessions have taken down the quality of this forum greatly, IMHO.  

I'm glad I'm not Ran.  I see this as a real dillema, to preserve a long lasting forum he had created of a very interesting and highly intelligent world community of some 1500 folks who really do have something to say and impact to make on GCA.  When these participants are actually in eachother's company at outtings, the conviviality is unmistakeably genuine.  But, he/we must try to keep the great offerings of these 'obsessed' but highly informed GCA fanatics, yet reign in their misguided passions when they start to cannibalize eachother.  

At the least, perhaps suspensions before a death sentence of a lifelong ban/censorship might be in order.  

It is Ran's call, obviously.  Personally, I'd like to weigh in on the notion of a sort of probation/parole period for JK, should he choose to personally apply for reinstatement rather than proxy efforts.  And a last chance warning or be suspended indefinitely admonishment to others plying character assasination, vitriole might be in order.  We all know it when we see/read it.  Let men argue with wit and humor in their own way, as long as there is underlying respect for the other person.

   Q. It is Ran's call, obviously. Personally, I'd like to weigh in on the notion of a sort of probation/parole period for JK, should he choose to personally apply for reinstatement rather than proxy efforts. A. Dick, thank you for the kind words and I do hope we run into each other over my many upcoming trips to the Sand Hills in the coming years. Please do note that I am not interested in reinstatement to the current format of the GCA discussion group. For me to not express my opinions on the idiocy of personality that are a cancer to the site would be both a lie to myself, my children, my friends and every other person who I will meet in the future that make a meaningful contribution to society. I understand, accept and live with this fact everyday in my nonvirtual life and do not have the energy or time to live a separate virtual life in addition. That being said, I do enjoy the discussion of architecture and architecture only. If any person, registered or not on GCA, is interested in my opinions or questions about golf course architecture I will continue to either answer or provide questions though the Anthony Proxy Program. Thank you and keep the questions coming.

[Anthony Gray]

   


                 

[Mark Pearce]

Bill,

How true.  Sadly, not only do neither of them seem to understand how ridiculous they appear but both seem to be labouring under the delusion that we care about the pathetic bickering and that their laser sharp persuasive powers may even be gaining them allies.  Sad.

Mark

Anthony,

You have no idea, do you, how unhelpful and inappropriate your "humour" is.  Or do you just not care?

[Anthony Gray]

Bill,

How true.  Sadly, not only do neither of them seem to understand how ridiculous they appear but both seem to be labouring under the delusion that we care about the pathetic bickering and that their laser sharp persuasive powers may even be gaining them allies.  Sad.

Mark

Anthony,

You have no idea, do you, how unhelpful and inappropriate your "humour" is.  Or do you just not care?

  Mark,

  You spelt humor wrong.

  Anthony

[George Pazin]

Can't say I have any clue what the solution to any of this is, I just hope no one leaves the site. No one benefits from others leaving.

I'm also a little alarmed Rich's post is now showing guest status - hope that's just a momentary glitch. I'm sure I've mentioned my hero/arch-nemesis relationship with Rich (your choice as to who's who), but I don't think anyone benefits from silence.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks anyway George.   I'll just go back to ignoring him and see where that gets me this time.    I don't know about Rich but despite his threats and ultimatums it doesn't look like TEPaul is going anywhere.

[Anthony Gray]

  It is RUT season. The bucks that aren't getting laid are stirred up.

   Anthony

[TEPaul]

"I understand you can only answer from your perspective, but I'd like to hear it anyway."


Joe:

No problem. From my perspective I think it was pretty obvious where a thread like this was going to go but I admire your motivation nonetheless. We have quite a few moralists on this website in the last few years, don't you know? And quite a few moralists and self-appointed arbiters and mediators without much of a sense of humor----or humour----depending on which of the countries you come from that are divided by a common language.  




"It is RUT season. The bucks that aren't getting laid are stirred up."


Anthony:

The RUT season in Pennsylvania is in September. I would have to say these bucks we have up here in Pennsylvania are pretty damned stupid because it really doesn't make a lot of sense if you want to get laid that bad you have to completely trash all my small trees and bushes like they do up here every September. I'm mean, seriously, how many really good looking, HOT and SEXY small trees and bushes have you ever seen?

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

To All

I feel I must bring to your attention my reply#42 which I believe also applies to many if not all. I expect the air is rather depleted of oxygen in some of your Ivory Towers, so stop all this rubbish.

Talking about GCA and golf, that is what we should be talking about. The attached article was sent to me by Niall and has more to do with this site than Joe’s or for that matter Terry’s comments.



Any comments on the article or are you so determent on BS and further character assassinations?

Melvyn

[Tony_Muldoon]

TEP thank you for responding to me  , but I'd still like you answer Joe's question which I will post once again.

“Was my initial post to start this thread out of line, or was it valid?”

Here’s Joe’s initial post because I still can’t see that you’ve digested it.

When will the offenders either grow up or get the hell out of here?
Yes, I'm pissed...it makes the whole group look foolish. I understand I can skip over the crap, but outsiders looking in aren't differentiating a few old people acting like children from the rest of the group that would rather they disappear. Industry people(archies, supers, construction folks) aren't going to contribute any more if this current MO of attacking and tomfoolery continues. I'm pretty sure the discussion group would be poorer for it.
If you suspect I'm referring to you...I probably am. I don't need to be specific here...there's too much crap to single out anyone.
Joe

Of course if you won’t or can’t answer a simple question put directly to you then the group might see this as further evidence that Moriaty is correct in saying that you will never deal directly with any post that might put you in a bad light.

[astavrides]

Melvyn,

Thanks.  I enjoyed that course when I played it 12 years ago.  It was the 2nd links course I played and it really turned me on to links golf.  I wonder when the article was from.  It was 4400 yards back then.  I probably played it at 5800.  Some of the routing looks the same, but they mustve changed some and perhaps got some more land.  I can't remember.  It would be nice to see a current routing map.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Serious question:  do you two have any idea how ridiculous you appear to the other members of this group after six years of this stuff?
...

Bill,

I'm going to have to ask you to not represent yourself as knowing what all members think.
Hope that's not a problem.

[Garland Bayley]

Bill,

How true.  Sadly, not only do neither of them seem to understand how ridiculous they appear but both seem to be labouring under the delusion that we care about the pathetic bickering and that their laser sharp persuasive powers may even be gaining them allies.  Sad.

Mark

Anthony,

You have no idea, do you, how unhelpful and inappropriate your "humour" is.  Or do you just not care?

  Mark,

  You spelt humor wrong.

  Anthony

Now, that's funny!

[TEPaul]

Tony Muldoon:

I'd be happy to answer any question. The question I answered I thought was Joe's but now you're telling me it was yours? What's Joe's question that he wants me to answer or you want me to answer or somebody wants me to answer or whatever?

As you may or may not know I don't do that well trying to figure out who said what with these quote boxes some use on here.

Again, I'd be happy to answer any question and I would be even happier to answer it if it isn't asked with a pretty obvious attitude.  

If the question was this; "Was my initial post to start this thread out of line, or was it valid (from my perspective)?", no, Tony or Joe, I don't think your initial post is out of line; I think it's valid indeed, I just meant to say that from my perspective it was pretty easy to see where it would lead and that is where it has lead. Is that where you wanted it to lead or hoped it would?

[DMoriarty]

Bill,  

Thanks for answering.   I know you don't enter into many conflicts directly, and I appreciate your candor.

David says "Bill,  I am still curious as to how your "grill room" guidelines would deal with someone who behaves like TEPaul?"

Well, for starters, face to face, you two would be across the table in each others faces and the others present plus a couple of waiters would separate you and you would each be asked to leave.  If you chose to continue the mayhem in the parking lot, that would be up to you.

Nobody could talk across a table for long the way you two talk to each other -- yes, you can be corrosive too -- without fisticuffs coming next.

Also, at some point the staff throws out even those homeless members so you wouldn't be able to stay up all night yammering at each other the way you do now via the computer.

Serious question:  do you two have any idea how ridiculous you appear to the other members of this group after six years of this stuff?

I suspect not.  And that's sad.  It's relatively easy to ignore and avoid the obvious 100 page threads, but now you are slipping into threads like this at every opportunity.

I do realize it.  It's extremely embarrassing, I don't like to be associated with it at all.   It has severely damaged my reputation among people that don't even know me, and with some who do.  I've stepped away from the site a few times because of it.

What I don't think you and others understand is that I'd gladly have nothing to do with TEPaul.  Ever.  I'd wouldn't sit across the table from him in a grill room.  I wouldn't stand at the same end of a bar.  If he tried to engage me in conversation I'd likely politely leave.  If he invited me to play golf I'd politely decline.  If he cornered me or followed me or continued to harass me, I'd have harsh words for him at the very least,  but mostly I'd just try to get away from him.  I'd rather have a discussion with a drunken homeless guy on the street corner than with TEPaul.  If someone behaved toward me face-to-face like TEPaul has online, I'd seek a protective order and have no trouble getting one.  If he harassed me in person like he does on the web, I'd immediately involve the authorities.   I've been around people with similar traits to TEPaul, and what has worked best for me is to avoid them.

But while walking away is an option in a grill room, it isn't much of an option here.   As Garland expressed above, if I walked away every time he harassed me, he would have shut my participation down completely.   Obviously that would be fine with him (and that is his oft stated goal) but it doesn't sit well with me.     As much as I would prefer to avoid TEPaul, I cannot stomach the idea of him bullying me into abandoning what interests me.   And make no mistake, that is what this is about.  It is about removing me from the conversation.  He's said so time and time again.   Why else is he giving Ran ultimatums and demanding I be removed?

So yes it is very embarrassing and yes I can be extremely corrosive, but it is very difficult for me not to strike hard when cornered and I am cornered in this situation and have been for a long time.   As I said, I will go back to ignoring him, and hopefully that will not elevate things too much.    I wish he'd ignore me as well, but as you know he sits at his computer and monitors which threads I am looking at, so I find that highly unlikely.  


As for my participation in this thread, I'm sorry it bothers you, but I'd like to try and figure away out of this morass.  And if you are going to talk about me, surely you should be willing to talk with me.

___________________________________________

Mark Pearce.

 I don't think I know you and I don't think you know me.   But I do know that it must be a hell of a lot easier to judge and scorn from the sidelines rather than to try to figure out a way to deal with this mess.  

If you've got something productive to say about how to best deal with this crap, I am all ears.

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

As requested some more on Prestwick St Nicholas GC - its much better than falling out with everyone and more interesting too.

Plans circa 1900, 1950 and 1992 plus map of clubs land and scorecard from 1992 and 2009

               



Melvyn

[Joel Zuckerman]

Perhaps our combatants can find some meaning in the words of our 16th president, who gave this brief adress at Gettsburg 146 years ago yesterday.  (The highlights are mine...

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us –that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

[TEPaul]

"What I don't think you and others understand is that I'd gladly have nothing to do with TEPaul.  Ever.  I'd wouldn't sit across the table from him in a grill room.  I wouldn't stand at the same end of a bar.  If he tried to engage me in conversation I'd likely politely leave.  If he invited me to play golf I'd politely decline.  If he cornered me or followed me or continued to harass me, I'd have harsh words for him at the very least,  but mostly I'd just try to get away from him.  I'd rather have a discussion with a drunken homeless guy on the street corner than with TEPaul.  If someone behaved toward me face-to-face like TEPaul has online, I'd seek a protective order and have no trouble getting one.  If he harassed me in person like he does on the web, I'd immediately involve the authorities.   I've been around people with similar traits to TEPaul, and what has worked best for me is to avoid them.

But while walking away is an option in a grill room, it isn't much of an option here.   As Garland expressed above, if I walked away every time he harassed me, he would have shut my participation down completely.   Obviously that would be fine with him (and that is his oft stated goal) but it doesn't sit well with me.     As much as I would prefer to avoid TEPaul, I cannot stomach the idea of him bullying me into abandoning what interests me.   And make no mistake, that is what this is about.  It is about removing me from the conversation.  He's said so time and time again.   Why else is he giving Ran ultimatums and demanding I be removed?"



Well, with that above, it seems pretty clear that you, Moriarty, would prefer to never say a single word to me now or at any time but isn't it just so revealing that you've seemed to want to TALK ABOUT ME to everyone on this website and out there in Interent Land on just about every single one of your self-possesed, self-serving posts on this website for God only knows how long?

JoeH and Tony Muldoon:

Is a post like Moriarty's just above what you had in mind when this thread started? I see my name in every single post this man makes these days. Why don't YOU tell him to shitcan that guys? What do you expect me to do when I sit here and read that crap from this guy day after day? If you don't want me to go after him to get him to stop it then you should.

LOOK, I proposed we get back to talking about architecture on the post #425 I referred to, didn't I? What could be more appropriate than THAT? What did we hear from him on THAT? He refused and then just reverted back to the same damn self-possessed litany of complaints about ME post after post, sprinkled with this crap about WM pissing on CBM's grave.

COME ON guys, figure it out!

[David Stamm]

In the jungle I run tonight
Find no peace to logical life
No confusion, just wrong or right, Oh yeah

Faces, numbers, I recognize
You don't fool me with cynical lies
No problems, no compromise, Oh yeah

Only solutions...
Don't pull me down, I just want to hear
Only solutions
Oh it won't be long, It won't take too long

Modern times driving me insane
Explainations I can't explain
Leave me standing in the rain, Oh yeah

Solving mysteries with nothing to loose
Magic leaves you without any clues
There's only so much one man can do, Oh yeah

Only solutions...
Don't pull me down, I just want to hear
Only solutions
Oh it won't be long, It won't take too long
Only solutions
Don't pull me down, I just want to hear
Logic with some vision
Clear visions
Clear visions

In the jungle I run tonight
Find no peace to logical light,
No confusion, just full of rights, Oh yeah

Faces, numbers, I recognize
You don't fool me with cynical lies
No problems, no compromise, Oh yeah

Only solutions
It's my point of view
Only solutions
Oh, clear vision
Only solutions
No second thoughts
Only solutions
Now, now, no contradictions

We fall even
Before loosing...
No escape

[Mark Pearce]

David,

we have exchanged PMs in the past.  You know my advice, which is pretty much the same as other advice you have received here on this thread and either failed to understand or chosen not to take.  You also know that in the past I have been sympathetic to your position.  My intention was not to scorn.  Rather, I think, I hoped that one or other of you would understand that many (and remember, I was agreeing with another poster) would understand how poorly your conduct reflects on each of you and choose to do something about it.  Sadly your response to Bill, in the same post as your response to me, suggests you just don't understand, or want to.

I note that Melvyn, in his own idiosyncratic way appears to want to talk about architecture, perhaps there really is no hope for you and TEP.  I'm leaving this thread.

[TEPaul]

Mark Pearce:

I referred on this thread to a post on another thread (Post #425 CBM thread) that suggests a really good way to getting back to discussing an interesting subject on architecture. Why don't you at least embrace THAT? On this thread, I'm following you right off it.

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

Lets all be happy and sing a song form June 1867 – Its called The Golf Song



Melvyn

[ed_getka]

David,
    Here is an idea. You want to discuss architectural history or whatever topic on here, so just post what you have to say. When Tom P responds you simply ignore any post he makes and just reply to the posts of others. Eventually if you don't engage with him he will lose interest. This may take some time.
    Whether either of you believe it or not you two ARE trying to win these shouting matches which as someone pointed out is the definition of a fool (doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result).
    Sorry I can't be more helpful than that.

[Bill_McBride]

...
Serious question:  do you two have any idea how ridiculous you appear to the other members of this group after six years of this stuff?
...

Bill,

I'm going to have to ask you to not represent yourself as knowing what all members think.
Hope that's not a problem.

No problem at all. I should have said "what appears to be a substantial majority of the members."

I was going to ask what is your position on endless bickering and acrimony, but that's your business.

[astavrides]

That's great Melvyn, thanks!  I do remember the routing completely now.  They somehow managed to get 1500 more yds compared to the original without seeming to add any extra land, or more than a couple longer walks from green to next tee. 

I showed up alone that day, and when I was waiting to tee off, 3 members invited me to play in a 4 ball match play thereby introducing me to links golf and match play.  good guys, good memories.  green fee couldnt have been more than the equivalent of $20-30 as well.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Serious question:  do you two have any idea how ridiculous you appear to the other members of this group after six years of this stuff?
...

Bill,

I'm going to have to ask you to not represent yourself as knowing what all members think.
Hope that's not a problem.

No problem at all. I should have said "what appears to be a substantial majority of the members."

I was going to ask what is your position on endless bickering and acrimony, but that's your business.

Again, I have to ask how you would know the thoughts of "a substantial majority of the members"?

[Anthony Gray]

  Garland,

  Bill said Mike Young was sick of my questions. Or was it him that was sick of my questions for Mike young? I forget. I love them both. NHice hat. I guess for Bill he may think that he needs to help police the site. That is OK with me. Even if he ignorantly comes down too hard on me. He is Bill McBride and since he is a member at Cypress I will kiss his ass like everyone else on this site.

 Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

...
Serious question:  do you two have any idea how ridiculous you appear to the other members of this group after six years of this stuff?
...

Bill,

I'm going to have to ask you to not represent yourself as knowing what all members think.
Hope that's not a problem.

No problem at all. I should have said "what appears to be a substantial majority of the members."

I was going to ask what is your position on endless bickering and acrimony, but that's your business.

Again, I have to ask how you would know the thoughts of "a substantial majority of the members"?

I said "what appears" and I can read.