golfclubatlas.com (not like a fine wine...)

[Sven Nilsen]

Thanks Sven.  Blood sugar and weight control problems have me drinking socially only.  I developed a taste for scotch while a bartender in my college years.  At my station in life at that time, Chivas was considered topshelf.  My recollection  is that the bottle was given to me sometime in the late 1970s, and it now sits fully sealed.  It was not until the initial King Putter, sampling several fine single-malts at Pete Lavallee's table that I learned it (Chivas) was rather common and ordinary.  Thanks also for the tip about when to drink the wine.  I don't remember seeing a recommendation on the shelf at Walmart, so I guess I'll have to look it up on the vintner's website.

That Chivas would make a good flask whiskey, perfect for the next cold rainy day you're on the course with friends.  But at this point maybe the sentimental value of the unopened bottle is worth more than the warmth of a few nips.

As for Walmart wine, you piqued my curiosity as to what they actually sell.  I was surprised by the selection, not only for the number of flavored pinot grigio's that are produced (not sure who the target market is there), but also due to the handful of decent wines that showed up on the website.  They also have J. Roget champagne, which I think retails for about 5.99 a bottle and is what we used to steal from the country club brunches in high school to be consumed in the back of an Oldsmobile Cutlass Classic while cutting at lunch. 

Good times.

[Bill_McBride]

Lou: The recommendation on dates for consumption on the Walmart shelf may specify the proper month or week to consume that fine botle of Chateau Libido - March 2013, not a range of years.

Cheers!

Bruce

PS: Living in the Great Garden State (NJ), we have arcane liquor laws. There are no "beer & wine licenses" in NJ. If you posess a liquor license to sell to the public, you can sell any and all types.  Yo can't by beer or wine at the gas station here either, not can you pumpyour own gas....no Self-Serv.

Bruce, my preference has always been Chateau Thames Embankment, preferably from the prior year. 

[Bart Bradley]

Ted:

I know that you are a good friend of Ran.  Did it occur to you that perhaps it is bad form to use Ran's website to criticize Ran's website.  If you don't think the content here is as good as before, start a great thread or make thoughtful posts or just don't look at the site.  I just cannot and will not understand why people feel it is reasonable to use this website to whine about this website.  It just isn't cool.  Constructive criticisms seem reasonable.  Simply bashing the website as less than it used to be....incomprehensible. 

The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it.

Bart

[Craig Sweet]

Seems to me that most of the golf courses worth talking about have been talked about to death. With fewer new courses, or new information on older courses to keep things fresh, posters have had to 'reach' for something new to post.

[JMEvensky]

Bruce, my preference has always been Chateau Thames Embankment, preferably from the prior year. 

Quoting for Rumpole reference--not many of those on this website.

[Bill_McBride]

Bruce, my preference has always been Chateau Thames Embankment, preferably from the prior year. 

Quoting for Rumpole reference--not many of those on this website.

Always good reading and a good chuckle. 

[mike_malone]

More like a college were new students come every year and old ones stay around to avoid the real world. 

[Steve Lapper]

Ted:

I know that you are a good friend of Ran.  Did it occur to you that perhaps it is bad form to use Ran's website to criticize Ran's website.  If you don't think the content here is as good as before, start a great thread or make thoughtful posts or just don't look at the site.  I just cannot and will not understand why people feel it is reasonable to use this website to whine about this website.  It just isn't cool.  Constructive criticisms seem reasonable.  Simply bashing the website as less than it used to be....incomprehensible.  

The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it.

Bart

Bart and BMS:


    Healthy civilized debate and real concerns are exactly the types of questions and responses Ran & Ben encourage and seek to attract. Ted was not close to any disrespectful or "whining" demarcation line in his comments. His concerns and questions were realistic, fair and of constructive value to this site. Many of us who've been around here for quite some time feel similarly from time-to-time and have earned every right to open this back up for debate.

   The utility of most anything diminishes over time and people like Donnie Beck, et.al. find the majority of the thousands of posts made by folks new to this board of little or no use. I agree, but laude Ran nonetheless for allowing most all ends of the spectrum to attempt to contribute to this site, regardless of the quality of their posts. Personally, I just wish the site had some verbal relevance governor.

[Bart Bradley]

Steve:

You happen to be wrong.  I know Ran very well.  

If you have a problem with the website, pick up the phone and give him a call or send him an email.  It seems common courtesy as opposed to using the very website about which you are complaining.

You certainly don't have to agree with my point of view;  but my opinion is not at all based on failing to know Ran.

Bart

EDIT:  Steve has now gone back and changed his post so that this response doesn't fully make sense.  Anyway, I stand by my point of view.  Make the discussion group what you want it to be. 

Bart

[jeffwarne]

A thread such as this does not encourage participation, certainly not by "new" posters. (Is The Mayflower crossing the cutoff or is it more recent.......?)
It seems to me Ran doesn't alllow 1500 people posting priviledges because he doesn't want them to post.

There's a lot of thoughtful discussion here, and sure there's a bit of not so great you have to wade through as well.
A look back at 10+ year old threads doesn't demonstate an appreciable jump in quality, and many of our most antagonistic, repetitive, and confrontational posters were right there in the middle of it then as well.

[Mac Plumart]

The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it.




I love it, Bart!

That's the beauty of this site.  The members can create the content they want to see.

[Ted Sturges]

Ted:

I know that you are a good friend of Ran.  Did it occur to you that perhaps it is bad form to use Ran's website to criticize Ran's website.  If you don't think the content here is as good as before, start a great thread or make thoughtful posts or just don't look at the site.  I just cannot and will not understand why people feel it is reasonable to use this website to whine about this website.  It just isn't cool.  Constructive criticisms seem reasonable.  Simply bashing the website as less than it used to be....incomprehensible. 

The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it.

Bart

To Bart Bradley,

No, it never occurred to me that this post was bad form.  I believed my comments were more in the constructive camp rather than "bashing".  Ran and I discuss this website often and I know how proud he is of what has been created here. This post was an attempt to promote a friendlier and productive discourse here (something I know Ran approves of). Though I won't speak for Ran, he is aware of how I (and others) feel about the occasional detour that the site can take when the tone turns nasty.  I have enjoyed this site and learned a great deal over the years from many in the DG. My concern about the site is that it can lose its position as a place to learn when people get nasty.  Since I don't know who "BMS" is and can't address his concerns to his given name, I would answer his criticisms about my 150 or so posts since my return (I don't need to defend how many posts I make, but there are many more under a different Ted Sturges heading from when the website first started) that when I start a thread, I generally try to pose a question I'd like to learn more about.  Unlike many on this site who want to tell us all how much they know...I know how much I don't know.

If my plea for friendlier and more productive discourse was lost on you (and BMS), it was a swing and a miss.

I'd like to personally thank Bill Brightly for his thoughtful response to my question.  He eloquently pointed out that sometimes we encounter a bit of cork in the wine, and sifting through it still results in significant enjoyment.  It helped me to see things differently, which I needed. Thanks also Bill for using your real name.

TS 

[George Pazin]

This site is like everything else in life. It's what you make of it. There is a lot of beautiful stuff, if you stop to examine it. There's also a lot of crap. Actually, that's not even fair - that crap might be crap to me, but good stuff to someone else. I don't need a fifth photo tour of the latest and greatest, but maybe that's what moves someone else. Good for you.

Excellent, excellent post, Bill Brightly, I owe you a Coke. Just as I owe Ted one, for many many payments in the past. It's easy to remember what was good about the past, but harder to work toward what can and will be good in the future. We should all try to be part of both.

That's the challenge for each of us. Think, inspire, respond, interact, whatever. And maybe ignore a little, too. That's life.

Jax, feel free to ignore this.

[jeffwarne]

Ted:

I know that you are a good friend of Ran.  Did it occur to you that perhaps it is bad form to use Ran's website to criticize Ran's website.  If you don't think the content here is as good as before, start a great thread or make thoughtful posts or just don't look at the site.  I just cannot and will not understand why people feel it is reasonable to use this website to whine about this website.  It just isn't cool.  Constructive criticisms seem reasonable.  Simply bashing the website as less than it used to be....incomprehensible. 

The website is just one great post away from changing the world of golf architecture.  Make it.

Bart

If my plea for friendlier and more productive discourse was lost on you (and BMS), it was a swing and a miss.

 

If friendly and more productive discourse is what you seek,
+1 to you.

[Kevin_D]

Complaining about golfclubatlas.com on golfclubatlas.com reminds me of the joke from Annie Hall:

Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible."

The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."

[Garland Bayley]

I too think Bill made a great post.
I have been here a while, and I think the website is better now than when I joined.
I have read some of the posts from the era before using real names, and I think people that pine for that era have selective memory.

[Anthony Butler]

Perhaps the paucity of new course openings in the US-where the vast majority of members are from-might explain the circular nature of trending topics on GCA.

Maybe Ran needs to do some recruitment of new members in Asia. Or better yet he could franchise Golf Club Atlas in China... Just like the Wiggles did several years ago.

[Bill Brightly]

Ah, the good old days...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7125.0.html

I hesitate to post this because it is such a complete waste of time... but that fact that Tommy N. posted it and the thread went on for 5 pages (most threads back then were one page) was just too much to resist. Sorry.