Trump buys Doonbeg

[Patrick_Mucci]

The above shows the why you are incapable of logical discussion and maybe learning something.

How so ?

[/color][/color]

Exactly my point Patrick. The rest of your post just reinstates your incapability of being able to find a logical conclusion rather than trying to prove you own theories.

Jon,

I didn't think that you'd be able to provide any pertinent citations to support your claims and I see that you've proved me right.

Just say that you didn't understand and that you don't like anything that Trump does

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

Jon, that's why I'm the "moron in chief"
I did misread your reply

Do my eyes deceive me or is that an admission of error in green type?

[Thomas Dai]

I see from the cross-reference on the post about the proposed nearby windfarm development, that it's for only 9 turbines. Front-9 or back-9 I wonder!

As an aside, I once heard a story that a couple of centuries ago when the British forces in County Clare were looking for somewhere to lay out a course for themselves they first looked at Doonbeg but decided against it and went for Lahinch instead. Is this correct?

atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

"A good example of destruction of the land and it's use might be the Condos to the North and the homes to the South of Seminole, a wonderful golf course sitting right on the Atlantic Ocean in Florida.  Forget that much of the golf course was a swamp or wetlands 100 years ago.

So, we have this land to the North of the golf course and on that land, right on the Ocean, a massive condo complex was built.
People live in those condos.
So, nature was destroyed in order to accomodate man's living needs
Have those condos, aside from their footpad, harmed the surrounding environment ?
If so,  to what degree and is it reasonable and palatable ?

Sandwiched between the condos and the homes is a golf course, reclaimed from what could be considered undesireable land, but, land nonetheless.

The creation of the golf course inherently destroyed the land that existed on that site before the golf course.
but, was that a reasonable and palatable conversion of the land  ?
I believe it was.
But, I also believe that other, more zealous environmentalists might argue to the contrary."

Condos in Florida have absolutely nothing to do with golf courses in the British Isles. As to Trump, I am not against Trump projects and if you read my posts properly you would know this but I am against some of the things he has done at a project that I have seen. I like most people on this site understand your posts very well even though much of them are irrelevant drivel.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

...literally, no idea what makes him tick. And how.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I had problems with this idiot a year ago. Best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them and not reply to its posts. He is a man that marches to the beat of a different drum but the thrives on the replies you post. I don't understand why there is no moderation on this site, he is a complete wanker.

As I was advised several months back DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

[Patrick_Mucci]

Condos in Florida have absolutely nothing to do with golf courses in the British Isles.

Jon,

Yes, they do, you just don't have the capacity to comprehend the context.

You object to Trump's project at Belmedie on the grounds that it destroyed nature, in particular the areas deemed SSSI.

Subsequently, You stated that a golf course doesn't destoy "nature"

Certainly even you, with your limited ability to comprehend, sees the contradiction.

I stated the the destruction of nature was inherent in the construction of a golf course and all man made facilities.
And, that it was just a matter of the degree of the destruction, along with the issue of who will determine what's acceptable and to what degree.

When you're discussing land use and man's altering and/or destruction of the land in it's natural form, to build a golf course and related or unrelated facilities, and an example is provided which illustrates the alteration/destruction of the land for use as a golf course and housing when the land in question is contiguous and sits on an Oceanside dune, it provides an example how the land, in it's natural form, was destroyed by both a golf course and housing, but, that both were acceptable by the standards in place at the time of construction.

Today, both projects might not get the permitting

It is undeniable that both man made facilities destroyed the land in it's natural form.

And despite your protestations to the contrary, every golf course destroys the land in it's natural form.

Have someone with the slightest ability to connect the dots explain that to you.

So now we travel from Florida, back past Doonbeg and over to Trump/Belmedie.

The Scottish Authorities granted Trump the permits to construct his golf course, clubhouse and Maintenance facilities.
In doing so the Scottish Authorities found that the degree of destruction of the land, in it's natural form, for the golf course, clubhouse and maintenance facilities, was acceptable.

There are people who feel that the condos and golf course in Juno Beach should never have been built.
Likewise, there are people who think that the Trump course and facilities should never have been built, but that's NOT what the regulatory authorities tasked with that determination ruled.

So, get over it

As to Trump, I am not against Trump projects and if you read my posts properly you would know this but I am against some of the things he has done at a project that I have seen.

That seems contradictory, but your opinion is your opinion.
If Trump conformed to the permits he was granted, no harm, no foul, despite your opinion.
If he didn't conform to the permits he was granted, the agencies granting the permits will deal with those violations, most likely also calling for remediation of the violation.

I like most people on this site understand your posts very well

You'd never know that based upon your written replies


even though much of them are irrelevant drivel.

It's a common practice to label that which is beyond your ability to comprehend as "irrelevant drivel""


Adrian,

Good to see you back from licking your wounds.
As usual, you add nothing to a discussion

Paul,

I seem to be in good company as you seem to have no idea about just about anything 

[Josh Bills]

I don't know why I am entering this mine field, guess today is just one of those day where I feel like I need to get more active, so  here it goes. 

As to golf courses and nature, I can think of two examples where the golf course improved on what was there and I'm sure there are many more examples.  First is a course here in Columbus, Ohio called the Phoenix Golf Links built on the site of a former trash heap.  Certainly the golf course created habitat and turned an otherwise useless piece of land into something beneficial to the environment (though not necessarily great architecture).  Second that comes to mind is Bayonne.  The nature it transformed was a wasted piece of industrial site that became a wonderful course and habitat for flora and fauna.  Not every golf course destroys something by being built, at least not destroys something that wasn't far worse.  It definitely changes nature, that is technically true, it doesn't mean it is always for the worse. 

In the end it boils down to what governmental bodies and private citizens are willing to accept for that piece of land.  There are plenty of examples of private citizens changing the mind of individuals and governments concerning all types of environments, not just golf courses.  A lot of Redwood forests preserved come to mind.  If Trump is able to get governmental approval for his projects, the people only have themselves or their government to blame.  If its the government it is up to each of us to be more active in determining the issues that should be their focus and bringing it to their attention.  If you just don't like his courses or his demeanor, I get it, but unless you have done something to attempt to alter the outcome, not sure complaining about it solves any problem.  (Not accussing anyone of complaining versus acting, as I'm fairy new here). Brad Klein's book about his efforts to build his course with Pete Dye come to mind, clearly a lot of effort over a long time and while not everything he wanted, i.e. holes closer to the water, still a great course with minimal impact on the environment.  But it took a serious commitment not just complaining it wasn't getting done,etc.

Having been to Ireland and wishing some day to go back, I can only guess TIGLI will not likely be top on my list.  Somewhere like Mulranny sounds more my style.  For those whose style is Trump, enjoy.  Trump did save Doonberg from its current plight, the questions become will he enhance the current environment or Americanize it.  At some point the consumer will either not pay his fees or not patronize his courses, until then Trump will continue to amass more courses and do as he wishes with those courses.  I can't fault the guy for wanting to buy golf courses, who wouldn't want that as a hobby. 

I'll stop rambling now.  Thanks.

[Paul Gray]

Josh,

As you're a new boy around here I should warn you that, if somehow you haven't yet realised, there is absolutely no room on this thread for the sort of rational argument you've put forward!

Don't worry though, Pat can no doubt explain, again, just why it is that golf courses destroy nature. 

Adrian,

You are of course right but I can't help but give him a bitter morsel now and then. I do like to see him chew it and angrily spit it out.

[Jon Wiggett]

Condos in Florida have absolutely nothing to do with golf courses in the British Isles.

Jon,

Yes, they do, you just don't have the capacity to comprehend the context.

The only similarity between a golf course and your condo example is they are both as a result of man's intervention but that is all.

You object to Trump's project at Belmedie on the grounds that it destroyed nature, in particular the areas deemed SSSI.

This is one of your made up facts. I do not object to TIGL on the basis that it destroys nature. I have no objections to the second course at all. I am against the destruction of SSSI land but not against the rest of the project.

Subsequently, You stated that a golf course doesn't destoy "nature"

Once again not the truth Patrick. I said a course does not have to destroy nature in the best practice cases it alters and often can improve

Certainly even you, with your limited ability to comprehend, sees the contradiction.

I stated the the destruction of nature was inherent in the construction of a golf course and all man made facilities.
And, that it was just a matter of the degree of the destruction, along with the issue of who will determine what's acceptable and to what degree.

When you're discussing land use and man's altering and/or destruction of the land in it's natural form, to build a golf course and related or unrelated facilities, and an example is provided which illustrates the alteration/destruction of the land for use as a golf course and housing when the land in question is contiguous and sits on an Oceanside dune, it provides an example how the land, in it's natural form, was destroyed by both a golf course and housing, but, that both were acceptable by the standards in place at the time of construction.

You appear to be going from a position that all land used for golf courses is in its 'natural form' before hand which is not the case as you would know if you really understood the subject. Also even you admit that some of your example is 'unrelated' so why use it.

Today, both projects might not get the permitting

It is undeniable that both man made facilities destroyed the land in it's natural form.

No it is not undeniable

And despite your protestations to the contrary, every golf course destroys the land in it's natural form.

The fact that a majority of SSSI in the UK are actually on or partly on golf courses would suggest you are also wrong. I suspect that you have an idea that the 'natural form' is stable state.

Have someone with the slightest ability to connect the dots explain that to you.

So now we travel from Florida, back past Doonbeg and over to Trump/Belmedie.

The Scottish Authorities granted Trump the permits to construct his golf course, clubhouse and Maintenance facilities.
In doing so the Scottish Authorities found that the degree of destruction of the land, in it's natural form, for the golf course, clubhouse and maintenance facilities, was acceptable.

There are people who feel that the condos and golf course in Juno Beach should never have been built.
Likewise, there are people who think that the Trump course and facilities should never have been built, but that's NOT what the regulatory authorities tasked with that determination ruled.

So, get over it

As to Trump, I am not against Trump projects and if you read my posts properly you would know this but I am against some of the things he has done at a project that I have seen.

That seems contradictory, but your opinion is your opinion.
If Trump conformed to the permits he was granted, no harm, no foul, despite your opinion.
If he didn't conform to the permits he was granted, the agencies granting the permits will deal with those violations, most likely also calling for remediation of the violation.

As happened

I like most people on this site understand your posts very well

You'd never know that based upon your written replies


even though much of them are irrelevant drivel.

It's a common practice to label that which is beyond your ability to comprehend as "irrelevant drivel""

[Ulrich Mayring]

In rare cases there may be a super smart person saying super smart things that just happen to be over the heads of his audience and thus are labelled as "irrelevant drivel". But these situations never last long, because the super smart person very soon leaves to find himself a worthier audience.

When it lasts long, you just know that it's an ordinary troll situation

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Josh,

As you're a new boy around here I should warn you that, if somehow you haven't yet realised, there is absolutely no room on this thread for the sort of rational argument you've put forward!

Don't worry though, Pat can no doubt explain, again, just why it is that golf courses destroy nature. 


Or, better yet, you'll explain to Josh how the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep doesn't destroy the land in it's natural state (nature).  Go ahead, try to convince Josh that golf course construction doesn't destroy the land (nature)
Then, you can graduate to maintenance barns and clubhouses.

You're so narrow minded that you believe that nature is only destroyed if Trump is involved.

By the way, didn't he get the necessary permits from the Scottish regulatory authorities ?  ?  ?


Adrian,

You are of course right but I can't help but give him a bitter morsel now and then. I do like to see him chew it and angrily spit it out.

You're confused again.
You need to substitute "laughingly" for "angrily"

[Patrick_Mucci]

In rare cases there may be a super smart person saying super smart things that just happen to be over the heads of his audience and thus are labelled as "irrelevant drivel". But these situations never last long, because the super smart person very soon leaves to find himself a worthier audience.

Not quite, Ran insists that I try to inform the uneducated, and I'm obligated to do his bidding.

But, since you're so smart, explain to Josh how the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep doesn't destroy the land in it's natural state (nature).  Go ahead, give it a try.

Ulrich

[Paul Gray]

Fundamentally Pat you seem to be unable to distinguish between conservation and destuction. I used to have a house mate like that when I was a student but she was a far left wing vegan activist. If your argument is consistent, you've changed a lot.

Take an ancient tree in need of a little TLC. Provide it with that TLC. Is that destroying the tree? Is implementing a policy of gorse and heather regeneration destruction? Have you, dearest Earth Child, become such a nut job that you believe man has been destroying the land ever since we abandoned a nomadic lifestyle?

[Josh Bills]

Pat and Paul,

I don't think we are really disagreeing that nature is changed with the building of a bunker, my concern is with the word destroy.  In my mind that creates a connotation of irreparable harm that can never be saved that harms nature in the end.  I guess my point was a word like alter or change seems more apt than destroy, but I can see both sides. 

As to Pat's example of a bunker of that size, no doubt the land is changed, but I wouldn't say it was destroyed, especially if it was a trash dump before.  To Pat's point it does end that portion of nature as it existed, which would fall cleanly under the definition of destroy and understand his use of that word.  As to Paul's point, just because it is technically destroyed does not mean it is a worse result, as it could actually have improved the piece of land or helped preserve the piece of land, as another example would be the creation of a sea wall.  Yes it destroyed the land as it was, but helped preserve the rest of the course in its natural state.

Seems like the argument at this point is more about semantics than substance.  I certainly don't want to speak for either of you though, so feel free to carry on. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I didn't think that you would address the question/directive, and I also understand why you would attempt to avoid doing so at all costs.

But, it's such a simple issue, so here it is again.

Does the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep destroy the land in it's natural state/form (nature).  


Fundamentally Pat you seem to be unable to distinguish between conservation and destuction.

Since you indicate that you can distinguish, please address/answer the question posed above.
Does the construction of a bunker, 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep destroy the land in it's natural state/form (nature) ?  ? ?

It's a very simple question only requiring a "YES" or "NO" answer.
So, which is it ?

I used to have a house mate like that when I was a student but she was a far left wing vegan activist. If your argument is consistent, you've changed a lot.

Totally irrelevant

Take an ancient tree in need of a little TLC.              
Provide it with that TLC. Is that destroying the tree?
Is implementing a policy of gorse and heather regeneration destruction?

Is this the extent of your intellect.
You cite a living tree, you nuture the living tree and the tree gets healthier.
What has that got to do with cutting the tree/s down and in their place, building a golf course ?

Have you, dearest Earth Child, become such a nut job that you believe man has been destroying the land ever since we abandoned a nomadic lifestyle?

Since you're comprehension is lacking, I'll ask you again.

When those condos were built on the dune on the ocean, was the land in it's natural form destroyed within the footpad of the condos ?

Does the construction of a bunker, 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep destroy the land it's built in, in it's natural state (nature) ?  ? ?

Again, a simple question not requiring stories about former room mates.
Just answer the question, "YES" or "NO"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon, that's why I'm the "moron in chief"
I did misread your reply

Do my eyes deceive me or is that an admission of error in green type?

NO, that's just an exalted title

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat and Paul,

I don't think we are really disagreeing that nature is changed with the building of a bunker, my concern is with the word destroy.  In my mind that creates a connotation of irreparable harm that can never be saved that harms nature in the end.  I guess my point was a word like alter or change seems more apt than destroy, but I can see both sides.  

Josh,

I was clear to add a defining phrase, "in it's natural state".
That clarifying phrase removes all margin in terms of the answer.

As to Pat's example of a bunker of that size, no doubt the land is changed, but I wouldn't say it was destroyed, especially if it was a trash dump before.  

We're discussing Doonbeg and Trump Scotland, not Bayonne or Liberty National

To Pat's point it does end that portion of nature as it existed, which would fall cleanly under the definition of destroy and understand his use of that word.  As to Paul's point, just because it is technically destroyed does not mean it is a worse result, as it could actually have improved the piece of land or helped preserve the piece of land, as another example would be the creation of a sea wall.  Yes it destroyed the land as it was, but helped preserve the rest of the course in its natural state.

Josh, my point is just one piece of a progressive puzzle.
Unfortunately Paul and Jon are engaged in a game of "checkers", while I'm playing "chess".
They're incapable of answering the simplest of questions.
I think that they're gripped in fear as to what may lie ahead.  

Seems like the argument at this point is more about semantics than substance.  
I certainly don't want to speak for either of you though, so feel free to carry on.

It's not about semantics, as you'll come to learn, as soon as Paul finds it within himself to muster up the courage and intellect to answer the simple "YES" or "NO" question.

I'm afraid that I'm dealing with the "scarecrow/s" in the "Wizard of Oz"

But, thanks for trying, it's appreciated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Does the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep doesn't destroy the land in it's natural state/form (nature).

Take your time, don't rush into this.

I'll try to help you out.

It's either a "YES" or "NO" answer.

So, you've got a 50-50 chance of being right by just guessing.

If you need to consult with others prior to formulate your answer, please do so.

Again, does the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep destroy the land in it's natural state (nature).

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

once again you ignore answering questions that put holes in your point of view.

Yes the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep could destroy the natural state of land untouched by man but this is very rare to find these days. Indeed, the only example I can think of in the UK in the last 10 years is TIGL which kind of says how sad your position is.

It the construction/creation of a golf course on farmland going to going to destroy the natural state of the land? No, it does not need to and there are many examples where golf course construction has significantly improved the natural habitat worth of the land.

Your point of view is just too unbalanced to be taken seriously Patrick 

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

once again you ignore answering questions that put holes in your point of view.

I didn't ignore answering any questions.
And, there were NO questions that put holes in my point of view, especially since you don't even know what my particular point of view is.

Yes the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep could destroy the natural state of land untouched by man [/color]

but this is very rare to find these days.

"RARE", are you crazy, every golf course that I know of has bunkers that were created by man.

Indeed, the only example I can think of in the UK in the last 10 years is TIGL which kind of says how sad your position is.

So, it's your contention that TIGL is the ONLY course in the UK that has bunkers created by man.
Do you ever bother to proof read what you type.

It the construction/creation of a golf course on farmland going to going to destroy the natural state of the land?

You're contradicting yourself again, you just told us that bunker construction destroys the natural state of the land.

Now, how about tees and the creation of USGA type greens.  Do they destroy the natural state of the land ?
Or, are they found "naturally" in farmland. ?

And, how about if the course wasn't built on farmland, but, in a forestlike "Hidden Creek".
Are you now going to tell us that the forest that was replaced by a constructed golf course wasn't destroyed ?

No, it does not need to and there are many examples where golf course construction has significantly improved the natural habitat worth of the land.

We'll get to that in due time.

Your point of view is just too unbalanced to be taken seriously Patrick  

You don't know what my point of view is.
You only see the tip of the iceberg.

Paul Gray,

Jon has answered the question I posed, and it didn't take him long to respond.

So, I'll ask you again.Does the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep destroy the land in it's natural state/form (nature).
[/i]



u]

[Paul Gray]

EVERY golf course INHERENTLY destroys nature

Your words, not fine. No mention there of altering a natural state. Clearly, as Josh has also now picked up on, you were as clear as day. I've trained kids barely out of school that show far more talent than you when it comes to logical argument. A lawyer, you ain't.

Anyway, things to do and, not for the first time, I've forgotten what time we shouldn't feed you after and have a sneaking suspicion you've eaten too late. You may well be busy yourself, what with the CND marches and petitioning your government to grant equal rights to daisies. And do try to stay away from your happy herb dealer for a while.



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

EVERY golf course INHERENTLY destroys nature

That's correct.
It's undeniable, except by you.

Since you've again refused to answer the question, I'll ask you again.

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

"YES" or "NO"

Your words, not fine.


Yes, they are my words, and I think "MINE" is spelled MINE", NOT "FINE"
Normally I wouldn't be picky but since you guys chose to hone in on grammar I thought spelling should be held to the same standard.

No mention there of altering a natural state. Clearly, as Josh has also now picked up on, you were as clear as day. I've trained kids barely out of school that show far more talent than you when it comes to logical argument. A lawyer, you ain't.

Actually, I did very well on the Law Boards

Anyway, things to do and, not for the first time, I've forgotten what time we shouldn't feed you after and have a sneaking suspicion you've eaten too late. You may well be busy yourself, what with the CND marches and petitioning your government to grant equal rights to daisies.

I guess you'll do anything to try to avoid answering the question, one that I've repeatedly asked you.
But, no amount of deflection and/or diversion will work .
Answer the question.  Get help if you need it, but, answer the question

And do try to stay away from your happy herb dealer for a while.

As Dan King, Mike Cirba, Ron Priichard and others can attest, that's not part of my repertoire

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

once again you ignore answering questions that put holes in your point of view.

I didn't ignore answering any questions.
And, there were NO questions that put holes in my point of view, especially since you don't even know what my particular point of view is.

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

Yes the construction of a bunker 60' X 30' and 8 feet deep could destroy the natural state of land untouched by man [/color]

but this is very rare to find these days.

"RARE", are you crazy, every golf course that I know of has bunkers that were created by man.

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

Indeed, the only example I can think of in the UK in the last 10 years is TIGL which kind of says how sad your position is.

So, it's your contention that TIGL is the ONLY course in the UK that has bunkers created by man.
Do you ever bother to proof read what you type.

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. It is the only one that I can think of that has been constructed on pristine natural land though if you can find another one let me know

It the construction/creation of a golf course on farmland going to going to destroy the natural state of the land?

You're contradicting yourself again, you just told us that bunker construction destroys the natural state of the land.

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!

Now, how about tees and the creation of USGA type greens.  Do they destroy the natural state of the land ?
Or, are they found "naturally" in farmland. ?

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

And, how about if the course wasn't built on farmland, but, in a forestlike "Hidden Creek".
Are you now going to tell us that the forest that was replaced by a constructed golf course wasn't destroyed ?

We are discussing 'natural state' so it would depend on whether the forest was ancient woodland or a commercial 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. Funny thing is if you were not such a lap dog to its owner you could have given another more obvious example

No, it does not need to and there are many examples where golf course construction has significantly improved the natural habitat worth of the land.

We'll get to that in due time.

Your point of view is just too unbalanced to be taken seriously Patrick  

You don't know what my point of view is.
You only see the tip of the iceberg.

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

[Adrian_Stiff]

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