[Patrick_Mucci]

I thought that your posts on this thread were your point of view on the topics being discussed on this thread but obviously not. So even you do not believe the rubbish you are peddling

Then tell us exactly what my point of view is if you're so sure that you know or even understand it.
You're still playing checkers

No I am not crazy but you obviously cannot read. It is rare to find land 'IN ITS NATURAL STATE'

Really.   Perhaps you should tell Mike Keiser, Roger Hansen and Steve Wynn that, as it would come as a major surprise to them.
I'd bet that even the "Donald" would be shocked

No I do not think that TIGL is the only course in the last 10 years that has bunkers only a moron would think anyone would think that.

But that's what you said.
Don't you proof read what you type ?

Once again I have over estimated your mental prowess so let me dumb it down for you so you might comprehend.
Farmland is not land in its 'natural state' so is building a course on farmland destroying the land in its natural state.
Now two possibilities yes or no!

That's not necessarily true.
Some farmland is comprised of natural grazing pastures, so perhaps you should have been more specific and described the land as either adulterated or unadulterated

Patrick, farmland is not the natural state of the land. It is a manmade environment.

Not necessarily, it depends upon what type of farmland.
Take the land at Sand Hills, it was farmland for grazing herds of cattle, untouched by the hand of man.
You do know that there's a limit on how much time I can waste educating you, don't you.

We are discussing 'natural state' so it would depend on whether the forest was ancient woodland or a commercial woodland.
Natural woodland


But the point is your contention of courses 'ALWAYS' destroying the natural state of the course. Just because you think you have found one example does not mean that ALL do so.

OK, let's use the courses at Bandon and Sand Hills or Shadow Creek, take your pick


Funny thing is if you were not such a lap dog to its owner you could have given another more obvious example

I already did

Patrick, really. You know it is impossible for an iceberg to be big when floating in such shallow waters 

That's only the case if you mind is limited to one dimension, height.
An iceberg can be of considerable size when you measure the other two dimensions, width and length.
You have so much to learn and I only have so much time

[/quote]
[/quote]

[Jon Wiggett]

That's only the case if you mind is limited to one dimension, height.
An iceberg can be of considerable size when you measure the other two dimensions, width and length.

No Patrick, then it is called an ice sheet. You will be saying that mountains can be flat next 

Farmland, even extensively grazed, is been influenced by man and is therefore not in its natural state. How many breeds of cattle are native to the USA?

I think you will find Mike Keiser, Roger Hansen and Steve Wynn will all agree that finding land in its natural state in the British Isles is rare. As for the Donald he made a specific point of saying how unique the unspoilt natural aspect of 'The Great Dunes of Scotland' was.

Now if you are using Bandon as an example land in its natural state then you are very much mistaken as it was covered in gorse which is NOT a native plant and was introduced bay MAN (George Bennett) which kind of puts you knowledge of this whole subject into perspective really.

Sorry Patrick, but you really do not have the foggiest do you

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

That's only the case if you mind is limited to one dimension, height.
An iceberg can be of considerable size when you measure the other two dimensions, width and length.

No Patrick, then it is called an ice sheet.

I think you meant "ice floe" but, you're wrong..... Again

It's called an iceberg.

Here's the definition of an "iceberg"
"a large floating mass of ice detached from a glacier or ice sheet and carried out to sea"


You will be saying that mountains can be flat next  

That would be a Mesa or Plateau

Farmland, even extensively grazed, is been influenced by man and is therefore not in its natural state.[

Not true, and you need to read more carefully.
Here's what I asked you.

Does the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep destroy the LAND in it's natural state/form ?

Note, I was specific in using the term "LAND", not flowers, not grass, not bushes, but, the raw land.
And, after some pulling of teeth, you correctly answered the question by declaring, "YES"

How many breeds of cattle are native to the USA?

Irrelevant and an attempt to divert/deflect

I think you will find Mike Keiser, Roger Hansen and Steve Wynn will all agree that finding land in its natural state in the British Isles is rare.

I don't think so, if it was easy for Trump it would have to be easy for Keiser, Hansen and Wynn.
But the percentile chances of finding land in it's raw form isn't the issue, that's just another attempt on your part to divert/deflect from the issue.

As for the Donald he made a specific point of saying how unique the unspoilt natural aspect of 'The Great Dunes of Scotland' was.

So he found some of that rare land you were alluding to.

Now if you are using Bandon as an example land in its natural state then you are very much mistaken as it was covered in gorse which is NOT a native plant and was introduced bay MAN (George Bennett) which kind of puts you knowledge of this whole subject into perspective really.

Not at all, it just shows that you can't distinguish "land" from "flora"
The "LAND" at Bandon was in it's natural state/form.
Ditto Sand Hills and Shadow Creek

Sorry Patrick, but you really do not have the foggiest do you

I'm doing my best to educate you, but it's a very difficult task.
But, I think I'm beginning to make progress.

By the way, where's Paul Gray ?
Has he gone "radio silent" because the questions are too difficult for him ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Now try to follow along.

It's undeniable that the construction of a golf course destroys the land in it''s raw or natural form/state.
You've conceded that, albeit reluctantly.

The question today, in modern times is, to what degree is that acceptable ?
The answer to that question, and it is subjective, is largely left up to the permitting agencies with jurisdiction over that site.

While you and I might disagree with the permitting agencies, and while those agencies might be challenged and over ruled, in general and for the purposes of this discussion let's accept them as the determiner of what's acceptable for each site.

And, let's concede that what's acceptable in one jurisdiction may or may not be acceptable in another jurisdiction.

Are we in agreement so far ?

By the way, where's Paul Gray ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Oh you are talking about the soil Patrick.

I had assumed that you meant the wider definition including flora and fauna but if it is just the soil you are talking about then apart from actually burning it the answer to your question has to be NO. Building the bunker would not destroy the land in its natural state. The soil would still be the same.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

DO NOT BE A TROLL FEEDER, UNFED TROLLS WILL FUCK OFF

With a slightly heavy heart (being, as we are, enlightened, it's a shame when we can't educate accordinlgy) I've concluded that it has been fed quite enough. I shall refrain. And it will no doubt use bigger green ink.

We all know where we stand and, should Jon continue to bait him, he knows he has our support.

[Jon Wiggett]

DO NOT BE A TROLL FEEDER, UNFED TROLLS WILL FUCK OFF

With a slightly heavy heart (being, as we are, enlightened, it's a shame when we can't educate accordinlgy) I've concluded that it has been fed quite enough. I shall refrain. And it will no doubt use bigger green ink.

We all know where we stand and, should Jon continue to bait him, he knows he has our support.

Paul,

I think the discussion has come to a conclusion mainly due to Patrick not understanding the subject he was talking about  I (like most on this thread I suspect) mistakenly thought Patrick was talking about land in the landscape tense not land as in dirt. Indeed, I suspect he was talking landscape till the gorse issue came up and then altered his definition due to losing the discussion. By moving dirt you do not destroy it just alter where it is. So the answer to Patricks question is no.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Oh you are talking about the soil Patrick.

I had assumed that you meant the wider definition including flora and fauna but if it is just the soil you are talking about then apart from actually burning it the answer to your question has to be NO. Building the bunker would not destroy the land in its natural state. The soil would still be the same.

Jon,

You must be daft, the soil would be GONE.

There'd be a hole in the ground, 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep.

The land in it's natural form/state would have been destroyed in that location.

You've been telling us about your abilities but your reply above casts doubt on any semblance of intelligence..

[Patrick_Mucci]

DO NOT BE A TROLL FEEDER, UNFED TROLLS WILL FUCK OFF

With a slightly heavy heart (being, as we are, enlightened, it's a shame when we can't educate accordinlgy) I've concluded that it has been fed quite enough. I shall refrain. And it will no doubt use bigger green ink.

We all know where we stand and, should Jon continue to bait him, he knows he has our support.

Paul,

I knew that you would do anything to avoid answering the question posed to you.
A question which would later serve to refute your position and undermine your objections to Trump's project.
I'm certainly not surprised that you're slinking away with your tail between your legs, it's what you do when you begin to see that you're on the losing end of a debate.  So slink away, you won't be missed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DO NOT BE A TROLL FEEDER, UNFED TROLLS WILL FUCK OFF

Paul,

I think the discussion has come to a conclusion mainly due to Patrick not understanding the subject he was talking about  I (like most on this thread I suspect) mistakenly thought Patrick was talking about land in the landscape tense not land as in dirt.

Jon,

I was quite clear with my words, I can't be held responsible for your lack of reading comprehension.

Indeed, I suspect he was talking landscape till the gorse issue came up and then altered his definition due to losing the discussion.

Not at all.
If you were capable of reading with the slightest degree of comprehension, I was as clear as possible about destroying the "LAND"
That was INHERENT in the example of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep.
Or didn't you understand that ?
I even referenced the word "location" when referencing "destruction"

I know that you know that you're losing and will continue to lose this debate.
And I know that you want to demonize Trump as the only person to damage/destroy the land, and avoid admitting that anyone who has built a golf course has destroyed the land, it's inherent in the process.

By moving dirt you do not destroy it just alter where it is. So the answer to Patricks question is no.

Then, by YOUR definition, Trump could do whatever he wanted to do to the dunes and he wouldn't have been deemed to destroy the land.
He just would have moved it according to you.
Ergo, he hasn't destroyed or damage anything, he just moved it.

You're a joke and the joke's on you and the other dunce, Paul Gray

The fact is that when you build a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep you destroy the land where the bunker is sited.
To deny that would elevate you to colossal moron status.

Returning to your view of what constitutes "land" let's return to Hidden Creek, a course cut out of natural forest by C & C.
Are you now going to tell us that the land wasn't destroyed by the creation of that golf course ?

Based upon your stated definition of what constitutes "land", they destroyed the land.

You can't have it both ways and you also know that you're being painted into a corner by your own admissions and that you will do anything to try to avoid the inevitable.   Paul Gray realized that and fled to lick his wounds with his buddy Adrian, who's well versed in licking wounds inflicted by him being on the losing side of numerous debates.

I particularly liked your attempt at avoidance, deflection and diversion when you asked about native cattle.
That was certainly germane to the discussion

Are you familiar with what is native/natural to the Galapagos ?

At what point does a species or feature become "native" ?
I asked this question previously.
100 years, 1,000 years, 1,000,000 years 10,000,000 years.
Be careful what you answer.

P.S.   If you need help, call Paul because he's told you, you have his support

[Jon Wiggett]

Oh you are talking about the soil Patrick.

I had assumed that you meant the wider definition including flora and fauna but if it is just the soil you are talking about then apart from actually burning it the answer to your question has to be NO. Building the bunker would not destroy the land in its natural state. The soil would still be the same.

Jon,

You must be daft, the soil would be GONE.

Correct, but not destroyed

There'd be a hole in the ground, 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep.

The land in it's natural form/state would have been destroyed in that location.
Not destroyed, moved
You've been telling us about your abilities but your reply above casts doubt on any semblance of intelligence..

Then, by YOUR definition, Trump could do whatever he wanted to do to the dunes and he wouldn't have been deemed to destroy the land.
He just would have moved it according to you.
Ergo, he hasn't destroyed or damage anything, he just moved it.

No Patrick, because I was talking about land as in landscape so Trump did destroy it.

Well as I said to Paul, subject closed. I was right and you were wrong.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

You can't have it both ways.

You can't claim that a bunker, constructed by excavating the land in it's natural form/state, to the degree of 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep doesn't destroy the land where that bunker is now located.

It's irrefutable, the land has been destroyed.

Your premise that the land isn't destroyed, just moved, would give Trump a free hand in doing whatever he pleased to the land, because, he's just moving it according to you.

But, unlike that MIT, Paul Gray, you know where this is leading, and it doesn't have an agreeable ending for you, Paul and your minions.

Land is inherently destroyed in the construction of a golf course, every golf course.

The issue is: to what degree do we permit that ?
Within what confines is it acceptable ?

Let me know when you're ready to continue or if you just want to concede that Trump didn't destroy the land any more than any other golf course destroyed the land

[Howard Riefs]

Trump is now "considering a complete rebuild of Doonbeg. ... Martin Hawtree will either enhance the existing Doonbeg course or completely redesign a new links"

http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2014/3/5/snails-beware-trump-planning-doonbeg-revolution

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/3/5/trump-eyeing-doonbeg-rebuild.html

[Tony_Muldoon]

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/will-donald-come-up-trumps-with-doonbeg-1.1788498


It's almost as if he's trying a charm offensive rather than the usual take no prisoners approach. 

Shame the couldn't find a Journalist who knew anything about golf.

[Brian_Ewen]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101929672#.

Donald Trump faces snail fight for golfing heaven
Matt Clinch   | @mattclinch81
2 Hours Ago
CNBC.com
It's a maximum of 175 euros ($234) for a round at Donald Trump's golf course in Doonbeg on the west coast of Ireland. The manicured greens and rugged dunes offer a decent challenge to any sporting hopeful against the backdrop of some of the most stunning scenery in the country.

However, below the surface of a golfing paradise for many American tourists lies much-needed development. The Trump Organization is battling on many fronts: a receding coastline, wind turbines that could radically change the vista and an endangered microscopic snail that needs preservation and constant surveillance.

Trump's investment of a reported 15 million euros ($20 million) back in February looks like a bargain, but that bargain is at risk of turning sour. The eighteenth green is just one area that is in danger of falling into the sea as fierce winter winds, 30-meter waves and driving rain has chipped away at the landscape.

Land erosion
Earlier this year, the quick fix solution of dumping tons of rocks on the site led to Trump coming head-to-head with local authorities, who served him with an enforcement notice before the rocks were removed.

Trump's new plan involves metal bars planted into the edge of dunes allowing the sand to naturally form once more. Staff at the course have been told to prepare for the temporary closure of the 400-acre golf resort at the start of 2015, but the council has yet to give permission to the U.S. real estate mogul.

As well as seeking further information on the new strategy, Clare Council want to clarify how this erosion management project will impact the Vertigo Angustior snail. The mollusc is a protected species that thrives in the area and has to be surveyed by Trump once a year, regardless of any development work.

In the nearby village - a clutch of houses mostly belonging to farmers and fishermen - they are currently welcoming plans for a wave energy project. The offshore technologies involved in the plans are deemed to be less obtrusive than wind turbines that can be in excess of 120-meters tall. However, the latter still remains a possibility for the area and for Trump poses dangerous similarities to the well-known problem found at his golf course in Scotland.

Wind turbines
After a similar application last year was turned down, a firm called Clare Coastal Power Ltd - part owned by a German company, according to its website - has lodged a new application for nine new wind turbines to be placed a few kilometers south of the golf course. This plan was "invalidated" by Clare Council back in March due to the lack of relevant information but a council spokesperson has told CNBC that the applicant has corrected the application and details will be announced to the public very shortly.


Right-hand side of the fairway on the approach to the 18th green at Trump International Golf Links & Hotel, Doonbeg.
CNBC's Matt Clinch

Right-hand side of the fairway on the approach to the 18th green at Trump International Golf Links & Hotel, Doonbeg.

Meanwhile, Trump has found common ground with campaigners working hard to make sure these turbines aren't built. Tony Lowes, a New York-born director at Friends of the Irish Environment even received a phone call from the U.S. business magnate with Lowes agreeing to team up and fight against any such future development.

More holes?
But Lowes still harbors concerns. The golf course relies on a temporary marquee and as such means space is currently tight. This could mean more development and Lowes fears that an additional 18 holes could also be on Trump's mind. There is no application for this, however, and Trump's organization has not confirmed these plans and was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

"We can fight them with the planning system and with European laws. They are open and transparent...they are powerful tools," Lowes told CNBC via telephone, although he highlighted that the group has a good relationship with the Trump Organization and hoped it could remain productive.

Back in the Doonbeg village, the mood is positive regarding the new owner. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bookings have increased this summer and the resort is enjoying somewhat of a renaissance. Locals are optimistic on new jobs and an injection of life into a golf course that was suffering under the old management. For Trump it seems, there are more battles ahead in the near future before this latest investment can really be classed as a bargain.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()