News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #700 on: July 29, 2010, 04:35:28 PM »
Really?  Then who was working in Sharp Park in 1930, and why did you post that article?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #701 on: July 29, 2010, 04:46:07 PM »
Good question, but the article doesn't mention a golf course.

I thought it interesting that immigration issues existed way back then,
Thought it might be relevant and  collected it, but then found susequent articles that clarified the funding and construction timelines.

The larger point David,is that I specifically stated "until the Depression" because after the crash, governments started doing crazy stuff like spending ten to fifteen times what it cost to build the course that had just hosted the US Publinks tourney, even tho the land had been gifted and came with a 100k endowment.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #702 on: July 29, 2010, 05:10:17 PM »
Hmmm.  It seems article is fine to support your argument, but not to refute it.    Fascinating.

The July 31, 1931 article doesn't mention when construction began.  It only says that the project will be completed.  The 1932 article said construction had been ongoing for the past year, but I didn't read this as putting an exact date on the beginning of construction like you do. 

And why do you keep pretending the work in 1935 had anything to do with the initial golf course, especially when it doesn't seem it had much to do with the golf course at all?    Are you now eliminating all courses where relief money was spent whether or not the course already existed? 

As for your repeated comparisons to the supposed cost of Cobb's Creek, are we to understand you are putting yet another limitation on your original statement?  Isn't it about time you put that statement behind you? 

Had they only spent $30,000 dollars on Cobbs through the Publinks?  Through 1930?  Through 1936?   Because based on the photos and descriptions I've seen, substantial changes were ongoing throughout, weren't they?   And did that $30,000 include roads, buildings, and other infrastructure?  Did the two sites have the same irrigation requirements?  Did Cobbs face anywhere near the engineering issues faced by Sharp?   

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #703 on: July 29, 2010, 05:14:38 PM »
David,

The opening day article states construction began a year prior.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #704 on: July 29, 2010, 05:49:14 PM »
Yes.  I know.   But as I said, I am not so sure that we should take what seems to be off-hand reference quite so literally    A year is not a very long time for a project like that, especially a government project. 

Did you not notice my questions about Cobbs?  Given your repeated comparisons to its supposed $30,000 price tag, surely you ought to flesh that out a bit.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #705 on: July 29, 2010, 08:14:18 PM »
Mike
Here is a link to the Mackenzie timeline; he became involved at Sharp Park in 1930. Again please explain what point you are trying to make. This was not public work program. This project was initiated at the time of or right before the crash, and designed and built several years before the WPA and similar programs began.

http://www.alistermackenzie.co.uk/history.php

Sean_Tully

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #706 on: July 29, 2010, 08:54:21 PM »
Guys. Sharp Park had been a work in progress for a number of years before it finally got its start. My first pick up in the papers was in Jan of 1925! Needless to say things in SF take some time to get done.

Regarding the flooding of the course,  there were some big storms that hit that area in its early years, but from what I have picked up on a big storm in 1941 that left water all the way up to the clubhouse. This is the best info that I have seen, but it appears that they were already concerned about the ocean as they were adding the Fleming holes right about the same time. There is alot of miss information out there and more digging is needed.

Tully

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #707 on: July 29, 2010, 10:58:24 PM »
Sean,

Thanks for the additional information.   I always appreciate your balanced, objective analysis.

I hesitate to say this, because I have the utmost respect for the research that Daniel Wexler does, but because I was accused earlier today by Tom MacWood of starting rumors about the demise of Sharp Park, and the events and timing that led to its re-routing and abandonment of holes along the ocean, as well as making up stories about holes literally washing into the ocean, I have to state that Wexler's book, as well as Tom Doak's, talks about those things happening very early after the course opened, which we now know is incorrect.  Daniel's book also makes the point that those holes fell into the sea, which seems to have some basis in fact.

Earlier today I asked both Tom MacWood and David Moriarty to tell us what Wexler's book had to say about Sharp Park, and both refused to answer.   Now, we know why.   ::)

I have more about this topic to say tomorrow, as well as answering some other questions that have come up, but I appreciate you bringing forward the information that building a golf course at Sharp was discussed, planned, and proposed for at least 5-6 years before any funding was actually approved, which seems to have finally happened in spring 1931, about 20 months after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, with the course initially opening for play a year later.   The costs to build it went over triple the original estimates between the very end of 1929 and course opening in April 1932, and it was funded by public works monies.

Thanks again.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2010, 11:21:40 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #708 on: July 29, 2010, 11:12:12 PM »
Mike
Was Sharp Park conceived as part of a public jobs program? The answer is no, but this public works program diversion should not even be a consideration based on your original claim, which is why I have not removed any golf courses that opened before Bethpage-Black.

Mike Cirba

Re: Tom MacWood's List of Public Golf Course thru 1936
« Reply #709 on: July 29, 2010, 11:14:28 PM »

Mike,

You put forth those blurbs above as some sort of conclusive, conversation ending proof of Cobbs' nationwide superiority?   Really?   This says more about your analytical skill and interest-driven reasoning than I ever could.  
-- You might want to do some actual research on how much the term "famed" is thrown around.   You might be surprised with the result.  
-- You might also want to consider how a blurb like this generally gets in a paper like those you listed. You don't actually think they sent a reporter, do you?  

You and TEPaul try to mock MacWood for posting the description of Cobbs from the Chicago paper above.   What in the article was grossly inaccurate?    
-- The course originally relied mostly on natural hazards, did it not?  
-- My understanding is that Cobbs Creek was always on the short side, was it not? , listed at the opening at around 6070 yards.  The way they measured in the Philly area at the time, it was likely significantly shorter than that.  
-- The course did contain a number of drive and pitch par fours, did it not?   (And by the way, early in the thread weren't you dissing courses you hadn't played for containing too many short par fours on the scorecard? Cobbs was not much longer than these courses, was it?)
--  About the only thing I can take issue with was the articles apparent reliance on the hole distances to judge the difficulty of the par 5s, but that is about it.    
-- You say they increased the distance of the holes for the tournament.  Did the listed yardage reflect that, or had it been lengthened multiple times?  If it had, why would such a great course have to be lengthened twice in its first dozen years of existence?  



Finding out that Sharp Park opened in 1932 at 6100 yards, par 71, with local guys firing 73s and 74s on Opening Day just made me recall this humorous recent diatribe from David.

I'm quite sure we'll hear how the proximity to the ocean breezes, as well as the sea-level elevation, as well as the cleverness of the holes, made for a great course at 6100 yards with 1932 equipment something that wasn't possible with 1916 equipment, but please save it.


Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #710 on: July 29, 2010, 11:19:08 PM »
Mike
Was Sharp Park conceived as part of a public jobs program? The answer is no, but this public works program diversion should not even be a consideration based on your original claim, which is why I have not removed any golf courses that opened before Bethpage-Black.

Tom,

You completely miss the point.

You are so hung up on the myth and timing of Rooseveltian "New Deal" and WPA and CCC programs which were simply a formalization and naming and structure around the rapid escalation of Public Works Programs started at the Federal level by President Hoover at the start of 1931 (see the articles above), and by virtually every state and municipality at that time in response to the emergency of the collapse of the economy and the millions of people thrown out of work.

As Sean Tully pointed out, Sharp Park was "conceived" years and years before it was actually funded and built.

And after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, THAT approval and construction only happened as part of an $8 million, multi-year Public Works Program approved by the city of San Francisco in spring of 1931.

If you think THAT wasn't about JOBS, and POLITICAL PRESSURE due to the GREAT DEPRESSION, I have a bridge to sell you.


And Tom...why did you refuse to answer my question about Daniel Wexler's account of Sharp Park after accusing me of starting rumors about both the timing and the substance of what happened to the course?  

I know you have his book.   Why the stonewalling?   :-X ::)

Aren't you the guy without an agenda, just looking to find out who did what, when??   ???
« Last Edit: July 29, 2010, 11:33:40 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #711 on: July 29, 2010, 11:45:41 PM »

Had they only spent $30,000 dollars on Cobbs through the Publinks?  Through 1930?  Through 1936?   Because based on the photos and descriptions I've seen, substantial changes were ongoing throughout, weren't they?   And did that $30,000 include roads, buildings, and other infrastructure?  Did the two sites have the same irrigation requirements?  Did Cobbs face anywhere near the engineering issues faced by Sharp?  



David,

Construction on Cobb's Creek started April 1915, and construction for the course and clubhouse(s) came in at $30,000 when the course opened May 1916.

It opened at just over 6,100 yards, par 71.

No changes of any significance were made to the course for the next 11 years, but in the months prior to the 1928 US Publinks tournament, new back tees were created on 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, adding about 200 yards, and making the course overall about 6400 yards, par 71.

No other significant changes happened until the 1950s, when 15% of the course was lost due to the creation of a Nike Missile base for military defense purposes, causing a significant re-routing and loss of six original holes.


Construction on Sharp Park started in spring of 1931, and after initial estimates of $100,000, and approved funding of $200,000, the costs for construction of the course and clubhouse came in at OVER $300,000 when the course opened April 1932.

Within three years, ANOTHER $250,000 was spent to make it a first class golf course, in reports of the times.

It opened at just over 6,100 yards, par 71.  

When the US Public Links came to San Francisco in 1937, the venue selected was Harding Park.

The course that was opened initially lasted almost a decade, until storm damage that swept at least some of the course and infrastructure into the sea required the abandonment of the sea holes, and creation of new ones further inland.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2010, 11:47:40 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #712 on: July 30, 2010, 12:14:46 AM »
Mike,   I think everything in that post of mine you reposted is accurate, but of course you take it out of context.  I was merely confirming the accuracy of a description of the course from a Chicago paper.  There was no value judgement associated with the length.   In fact if you go back in the thread I think you will find me holding it out as an example of how short some of these courses were at the time. 

I don't get the significance of either the cost or the length of Sharp.  You aren't still seriously contending that Cobbs was the hardest public course before the depression, are you?   

Your math doesn't work on the added distance. 

You never asked me to tell you what the Wexler book said, but I am a bit shocked that you expect Tom and I to do your research for your?  Who do you think I am?  Joe Bausch?   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #713 on: July 30, 2010, 06:34:44 AM »
Is having the US Public Links at Harding Park supposed to be some kind of slight to SP? Here are a couple of snippets from Golf Illustrated. Harding has always been considered a premier championship venue. It has been regular pro tour stop from 40s through the 60s, and most recently hosted some big events, including the Presidents Cup. A photo of the course was featured in George Thomas's book, on the few public courses featured in that book. Harding Park is beautiful golf course.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 07:03:53 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom M - Did Sharp Park involve reclaiming some land from the sea?

Yes, according to Mackenzie it was a major reclamation job. Which is probably why the course was susceptible to storm surges.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 06:48:42 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #715 on: July 30, 2010, 07:15:36 AM »
Tom and David,

Evidently you've given up on the "no massive public monies flowed into public golf because of and/or during the Depression until the WPA" argument, given the weight of evidence.

I selected the Depression as a delimiter for sound historical reasons that you continue to ignore.  It was simply the logical cut-off point when massive amounts of monies were used for public works programs, either in response to the Depression, or simply coincidentally concurrent with it, but many of these were also fed by it.   For instance, Robert Moses's NYC Parks Initiative actually began shortly before the Great Depression, but became an effort that synergistically and somewhat ironically was fueled by the Depression, and the mass availability of cheap labor.   John Van Kleek's work for Moses on all of the NYC courses began right around that time, in 1929 or so.

Further, as we saw above, Roosevelt didn't initiate the big public works programs that were a response to the Depression.   By early 1931, President Hoover was already cranking up the Public Works machine in an effort to stem the flood of joblessness.   Roosevelt only formalized it and built new structures (and named them) around it.   Many of these monies flowed to municipalities and were used to beautify towns, create parks, build bridges, and yes, create and update public golf courses.

So it was with an understanding of history that I made my claim, and yes, given the list you've been able to produce of pre-1930 courses I still feel very confident in my original statement.

In fact, my confidence is bolstered daily by you both continuing to fight so hard to add both courses built between 1930-36, as well as the ridiculous insistence that a millionaire-colony created around golf for the yachting set at places like Pasadena and Gulf Hills were "public courses".   That tells me you can't counter what I actually said effectively, so you have to pretend that I meant something other than what I said.

That's ok...I'm done with the post-Depression course discussion.   The fact that I've proven that Sharp Park was only actually built because of the spring 1931 approval of over eight million dolllars in public works monies is a case study that makes my point.   As always, I'm happy to discuss and debate any courses relevant to my original contention...those that opened prior to the Depression.



As far as Cobb's Creek.   It opened at 6,172 yards in 1916 to a par of 71.   Just over 200 yards of new tees were added just prior to the 1928 US Public Links.  

In that tournament, the Medal score was 152, and only 8 players in the field of 134 broke 160.

Although the course hosted the best local pros and amateurs at various exhibitions, tournaments, and daily play, including two US Women's Amateur champions and top national amateurs like Woody Platt and Max Marston, par 71 was never matched by anyone through the 1920s.   There was a reason it was "famed".


And Tom...Harding Park was in my Top 10 of public courses built before 1930 and I feel confident it was.   I do have to ask, though, as I've not played there.   How much of Harding's reputation do you think is based on the architecture, and how much of it is based on what my friend Bill Vostinak terms the "California Effect", where the look of the wind-blow cypress trees, the fog, the proximity to water, etc., all create a bit of a dreamlike setting, that is even evident in your old b&w photos?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 07:21:06 AM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #716 on: July 30, 2010, 07:36:06 AM »
Here is link to info on Harding Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harding_Park_Golf_Club

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #717 on: July 30, 2010, 07:36:43 AM »
Stiles and Van Kleek were still partners in 1931.

Here is a link to article from July 1935 detailing some of the changes Van Kleek was making.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1935/ag3810q.pdf
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 08:55:09 AM by Tom MacWood »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #718 on: July 30, 2010, 09:07:28 AM »
Mike,

The most amazing thing in those clippings in your post #680 is that they were leading off the project with the biggest expenditure of building and extending a yacht harbor!  Whether they were delusional, spending just to spend , or whatever, I can't imagine Obama or even any but the most cynical Republicans thinking to spend current stimulus money on that kind of project.  Even that populist John Kerry had to move his yacht back to MA and pay taxes on it the other day, no?

Things are still the same in other ways, though. Yeah, the Republicans rail against spending but it didn't stop a few from voting for the stimulus package, and there have generally been budget over runs every year since 1969 (there were a few Clinton/Newt years where it balanced if we overlook borrowing from the Social Security fund)  Lets face it, politicians of both parties like to spend our money like it is their money and pass the bill on to some future politician and generation after they are out of office.  We may still be alive when the day of reckoning gets here.

BTW, I agree with your general point about the public spending accelerating before it was given an official name by FDR.  As above, Hoover probably started it, but called it "ugly but necessary" whereas FDR called it a great deal.

Besides the politics, I think many on this site have trouble fleshing out time lines.  We tend to think of a whole lot of gca happening as "The Golden Age" as if it happened all the same day.  It is quite possible that the SF program was concieved in good times, and then repackaged as a spending necessity when the bad times hit 5-6 years later.  So, arguing whether its a depression era project because it was proposed earlier is a non starter for me.  It was quite probably both but its hard to decipher 80 years later from a few clippings.

Not sure about the budget over runs, although will speculate that it may have been politically easier to over spend on an existing project, as compared to proposing a new one.  But, I don't really know.

Hey, its good to know you guys aren't fighting so much about Philly courses any more! 

DM,

Given how much this thread has morphed to Tom MacWood's list, why, oh why to you need to take a swipe at Cobbs Creek in virtually every one of your posts?  Do we really need to smush Mike C down every single time just to be sure he is put in his place?  Really classy my friend.  The others seem to be playing nice, and you should, too! 

It appears the old pattern of each of you pretending to know exactly which ambiguous phrase has more meaning is re-emerging here. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #719 on: July 30, 2010, 09:33:16 AM »

You never asked me to tell you what the Wexler book said, but I am a bit shocked that you expect Tom and I to do your research for your?  Who do you think I am?  Joe Bausch?    


David,

Please leave Joe out of this.   He thinks I'm certifiably insane for even dialoguing with you guys and he generally has much more sense and wisdom than I do.

You've come a far way though from starting this thread saying I had no knowledge to take part in a discussion of public courses to now comparing my ability to produce research, facts, figures, and comparative analysis with a great researcher like Joe.   I take that as a great compliment, but sorry to disappoint you but all of this public course material on this thread is stuff I've dug up, not Joe.   Still, thanks for the kind comparison.

Personally, I think you're just a little miffed that a Philadelphia guy is explaining what actually happened at California's Sharp Park, including the timeline of when the holes were lost (much later than was reported in either Doak or Wexler's book), as well as the history of how and when it was funded and constructed.   Most other accounts have it opening in 1931, and mine is the first mention I've seen of H. Chandler Egan.   But that's ok, too;  if I'm able to contribute something previously unknown to a Mackenzie/Egan design that sadly seemed a bit cursed from the beginning (you can't believe the number of dead bodies, fires, and such that appeared there over the years), and that can hopefully be saved and perhaps even restored someday, I'm happy to do it and that's all the thanks I need.


Jeff,

Yes, amazing isn't it?   Imagine the chutzpah about 18 months into the Depression to kick off a big public works program with a Yacht Club!  
If you talk to Gib Papazian, it seems not much has changed in SF politics since that time, sadly.


Tom MacWood,

That's a great article.   You're correct that Van Kleek's work for NYC didn't begin until February 1934, and I confused it with the date that Moses became Commissioner of the Park System as he was in control of the golf courses prior to then and his ambitious plans for revamping of the park system coincided with the start of the Depression, and parallled much of it.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 10:30:55 AM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #720 on: July 30, 2010, 10:51:53 AM »
"DM,
Given how much this thread has morphed to Tom MacWood's list, why, oh why to you need to take a swipe at Cobbs Creek in virtually every one of your posts?  Do we really need to smush Mike C down every single time just to be sure he is put in his place?  Really classy my friend.  The others seem to be playing nice, and you should, too!"



Mr. Jeffrey, Sir:


Apparently so; that's his constant MO on here and it's been going on for years particularly with various Philly people. You're a golf course architect, Mr. Jeffrey; you're supposed to be observant. Please tell me this isn't the first time you noticed this.  ;) 


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #721 on: July 30, 2010, 11:24:40 AM »
DM,

Given how much this thread has morphed to Tom MacWood's list, why, oh why to you need to take a swipe at Cobbs Creek in virtually every one of your posts?  Do we really need to smush Mike C down every single time just to be sure he is put in his place?  Really classy my friend.  The others seem to be playing nice, and you should, too!  

It appears the old pattern of each of you pretending to know exactly which ambiguous phrase has more meaning is re-emerging here.  

Jeff,  Do you read the posts before you write these things?  Where have I taken swipes at Cobbs Creek?   I like Cobbs Creek, although I am a bit surprised Mike bothers to bring it up at this point in this conversation.

And only one of us is pretending to know what each ambiguous phrase means.

Mike Cirba, as usual, you've misunderstood my post.   I didn't compare you to Joe Bausch.  Get real.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #722 on: July 30, 2010, 11:29:44 AM »
David,

Why are you the only one on GCA whose posts I consistently misunderstand?

I'm more than happy to take the blame for that, except many others seem to have the same difficulty.  ;)

Speaking of actual research, what do you have to bring to this discussion beyond an argumentative attitude and cheap insults from the sidelines?   Darn...I shouldn't be the one to have to tell you what happened at Sharp Park from across the country, should I?

Maybe you should get over to Iindustry Hills and the Miller library if you want to have a constructive part in this discussion with me and Tom?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 11:31:23 AM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #723 on: July 30, 2010, 11:37:10 AM »
No, it is mostly you who misunderstands my posts.  But not just my posts, almost everything you read.   You just see a word or two and make up the rest. 

For example, here is what I wrote:  "Who do you think I am?  Joe Bausch?"   And from that you think I was comparing you to Joe Bausch?  Incredible.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Public courses to 1936 - NOW with Sharp Park history!
« Reply #724 on: July 30, 2010, 11:38:18 AM »
TePaul,

For some unknown reason, I seem to feel the need to chime in on these left coast/philly pissing matches (where oddly, the stream seems to fall in Columbus, OH from both directions) about once every six pages or so.  I will see you on page 24!

David,

Fine. Technically you take a swipe at Mike for originally (and occaisionally thereafter) defending CC as the best in the land, when it is only one of the best in the land.  I was wrong in that last post.

For the record, I did read all the posts.  And for the record, you are full of it if you think it is only MC who parses posts and meanings of certain phrases.  And really full of it if you think the rest of us are just too dumb to comprehend what you write.  I can sure understand that ALL of us are somewhat misunderstood in this medium and there may be some offense taken by all to other comments.  From reading all this and other threads, it just seems to me that your attitude of telling us all we don't understand, we are parsing words, etc. is the strongest of many strongly held viewpoints.  And that tends to offend me.  

Mike and Tom Mac have a few skirmishes, but some posts do talk facts and not attitudes.  They have cleaned up their act.  I am just asking you do the same.  And maybe place a wager on just how many pages this one will go?  So yeah, my opinion doesn't mean beans, and you are certainly not the only one to blame.  

I just happened to call you out because of my frustration.  And how do you respond?  With an insulting tone to prove my point.  And a follow up insult to Mike Cirba. TePaul is right - it is your MO.

I am sorry for any offense I have given you.  I am occiaisionally just as guilty as the next guy, but don't really mean to be. I am certainly willing to engage you any time in productive gca discussion when the topic interests the both of us and look forward to that opportunity in the near future....just not before page 24! ;D
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back