Kevin, I think I got your point, but frankly I don't believe it when you say that most here here "would rather talk about the research." If that were remotely true, then most people here would be as infuriated as am about what he did to the Shinnecock thread and what he does to every other interesting thread in which TomM or I choose to participate.
TEPaul makes it impossible to reasonably discuss research. He makes it impossible to present research and have it be recieved in a reasonable manner, and he makes it impossible to have any sort of intelligent discussion about it whatsoever. This is true regardless of my behavior, it goes on even when I haven't posted in months.
You seem not to have noticed that TEPaul is on a mission, which he has readily admitted on many occasions. TEPaul is here to shut me up; to stop the conversation so that TEPaul can go back to dictating the history of these clubs to you and everyone else.
That is the point of this thread as I understand it:
TEPaul and Wayne have let it be known that there are a growing list of courses that are strictly off limits for reasonable discussion on this website. He actually informed me that I should have contacted him and Wayne before I posted about Shinnecock! As if he was some sort of godfather of golf history or something.
And your response and the response of others is that I should be the better man and take the high road? True. I should. NOW LETS RETURN TO THE REAL UNDERLYING PROBLEM HERE, AND THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD.
Perhaps you and others should man up and speak up and put a stop to this nonsense of tearing down peoples work for no reason. No one owns these histories, and TEPaul needs to quit acting as if he and Wayne do. Because if, as you say, you are only interested in discussing the research, then that is the only way it will happen.
If you truly believe what you said about "his behavior is no excuse for mine", then your second paragraph would have ended with "What I have written about TEPaul may be harsh and even rude."
No "but", no delegation of responsibility, no need to connect his behavior with yours in any way - just simply taking responsibility for your part (without having to assign a percentage to it).
I do truly believe that I am responsible for my own behavior and have delegated no responsibility. Like my behavior is my responsibility, his is his responsibility, and something need be done about his behavior for the good of the website.
Look at it this way. I'm saying "David, please focus on your positive contributions and cut the personal crap (of which you are XX% responsible for). TEPaul, please focus on your positive contributions and cut the personal crap (of which you are XX% responsible for)."
And what I am saying is that this entirely misses the point of this thread. It is not a matter of "personal crap" with TEPaul. His actions are of an entirely different nature. To name just a few things,
he is purposefully and intentionally trying to make it impossible for some of us to contribute positively to the website, and
has claimed certain courses as his own, and is demanding that some of us to come to him before we even post.
In short, if he doesn't approve,
he tries to shut down the conversation, and has done so again and again. FOR GOING ON A DECADE! If you are truly interested in discussing the research then this ought to be just as offensive to you as it is to me. But it is not. You are more concerned with whether I describe Mike Cirba as a lap dog when he behaves like one.
______________________________________
I hope for your sakes that none of you ever cross TEPaul, because if you do then you may get a taste of what it is like to have your hard work repeatedly shit on for no justifiable reason. Like what just happened to my Shinnecock posts. But if this does happen to you, I can assure you that I will be the first to stand up to him and tell him he is out of line and that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. And I can further assure you that I will not patronizingly lecture you if you choose to defend yourself against such nonsense.