Higher standards for GolfClubAtlas.com

[Niall C]

Her clients come from all over the world… Mexico, India, China, Panama, El Salvador… Oh, Ireland. While I sling booze for a living, my wife saves lives. Literally. Not one of us would last ten minutes in the places these folks escaped to live the American dream, and I’m proud of her for doing what she does.

I've been to Ireland, it's no that bad.


Niall

[John Kirk]

The whole immigration/illegal immigration mess is a result of all politicians involved being afraid to make a stand.
The failure to grant amnesty results in this under the radar culture that isn't the slightest bit actually under the radar.

The illegals (or undocumented, whatever you wish to say) I've come in contact with have been hard working honest people just trying to feed their family. But, I have a friend who is an ER doc who has a completely different take based on his experience.

The irony of the entire mess is the reason they can game the system is because we will not let them INTO the system.
So many get free health care by clogging the ER system, meanwhile my deductibles and premiums skyrocket under the (more irony) Affordable Care Act.

 

Don,

Just a note to recognize your balanced, experience-based take on this subject.  Thanks for that; your willingness to present two sides to an issue distinguishes this post from typical Internet politics.

My wife and I also pay very high medical insurance premiums, with a significant ($2500) deductible expense.

In general, people want the same things — food, warmth, love, family, shelter, and a chance to better our station in life.  Most people will do it fairly and honestly, given a reasonable expectation of success.

[Matt_Cohn]

I was just reviewing Ran's post.

The thread's title needs to be clear regarding what someone can expect when they click on it; people are busy and they should not have to aimlessly click on threads to glean their content.

On the front page right now are threads with the titles "Is," "What golf holes," and "What's," all started by Pat Mucci. Perhaps someone could forward the memo to him if he doesn't re-read it himself.

[Colin Macqueen]

Matt,
Apropos thread titles. It seems to me that on cannot now "hover" over the titles and glean what the remainder of the title is. Is this correct folks or is it just me missing something?


Cheers Colin

[Ulrich Mayring]

Yes, hovering doesn't work anymore. But it would be unnecessary, if thread titles were composed with care.

Ulrich

[Carl Rogers]

After the Donald Trump Golf Thread, I think a reminder is due.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The whole immigration/illegal immigration mess is a result of all politicians involved being afraid to make a stand.

The failure to grant amnesty results in this under the radar culture that isn't the slightest bit actually under the radar.

The illegals (or undocumented, whatever you wish to say) I've come in contact with have been hard working honest people just trying to feed their family. But, I have a friend who is an ER doc who has a completely different take based on his experience.

The irony of the entire mess is the reason they can game the system is because we will not let them INTO the system.

So many get free health care by clogging the ER system, meanwhile my deductibles and premiums skyrocket under the (more irony) Affordable Care Act.
 
Don,
 
The roots of the problem are that America remains an attractive alternative to millions and millions of foreign citizens.
 
But, we don't have the capacity to absorb millions and millions of immigrants.
 
The burdens to our systems are overwhelming.
 
Hence, like every other nation we have to have a "measured" immigration policy and that entails quotas.
 
There are too many qualified people being held at bay by what amounts to "no intelligent immigration policy"
 
There are too many illegal aliens already overburdening our systems, but, no one will come out with a sound immigration policy that doesn't serve their agenda, versus what's best for America.
 
As to your premiums, they will continue to go up.
There's nothing in Obamacare that retains the quality and freedom of care while reducing costs.
 
Those that hailed it as the next coming are going to be sadly disappointed as costs increase and physician networks shrink.
 
If it's not repealed, directly or indirectly, you will have a single payor socialized medicine health system by 2021.
 
Perhaps those voting for Obamacare should have read the bill before casting a "yes" vote.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was just reviewing Ran's post.

The thread's title needs to be clear regarding what someone can expect when they click on it; people are busy and they should not have to aimlessly click on threads to glean their content.

On the front page right now are threads with the titles "Is," "What golf holes," and "What's," all started by Pat Mucci. Perhaps someone could forward the memo to him if he doesn't re-read it himself.
 
Matt,

If you're too lazy to read the opening post in a new thread, perhaps you should seek enlightenment elsewhere.
 
Or, are you a believer in your ability to judge a book by it's cover ?
 
When people complain about the title of a thread it's a clear indication that the quality of those participating has taken a sharp turn for the worse.
 
P.S.  Would you list your contributions to this site ?
 
    Or are they de minimus

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, hovering doesn't work anymore. But it would be unnecessary, if thread titles were composed with care.
 
Ulrich,
 
How many threads have you introduced in the last six (6) months.
 
Maybe if you and all the other whiners would contribute more, I'd have the time to elongate my titles.


Ulrich

[Ulrich Mayring]

I will start posting more once those promised "higher standards" are actually upheld. I will start reading more once the problem of thread titles is fixed.

In general, I don't believe in mass-posting. I value a good content/noise ratio more than pages of mildly interesting golf architecture smalltalk or political ranting.

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,


I hadn't noticed any contributions of note/quality from you, could you cite some interesting/informative threads you initiated ?

[Paul Gray]

So this is higher standards, is it?


It would now apparently be a terrible thing to have a light hearted thread about The Ashes or American Catchball but a GOP debate is fine? Great stuff.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So this is higher standards, is it?
 
Paul,
 
When whiners complain about the title of a thread, but fail to initiate any threads of interest on their own, you have to question their motives.
 
Do they really want to elevate the quality of the discussions ?
 
If so, they'd focus on the substance of a thread rather than its title.
 
In addition, they wouldn't be selective in their whining/complaining as Ulrich and others have been.  Not one person whined/complained about Rich Goodale's thread entitled, "no mas".  So, are they really that upset about truncated titles, or are they just nit picking with me ?
 
If they really wanted to elevate the quality of discussion on this site, they'd contribute more by introducing interesting threads instead of complaining about the titles of threads that are interesting/informative.
 
I guess it's a question of form versus substance and petty personal attacks.
 
I prefer threads of substance and don't care how the author chooses to title them.
 
 

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I think it's just a matter of decorum and decency to abide by the websites' host wishes. It's not personal or petty.

Also, I don't think there are any guidelines or contests pertaining to number of substantive threads to earn the right to make up your own rules.

[Mark Woodger]

Pat, I would find it very useful if you could, as best as possible, indicate the full substance of a topic in the title so I can help determine if it is of interest to me without clicking on the link. Is this something you could do in future for me please?
 

[John Kavanaugh]

Rob,

I didn't find it funny at all when I heard that is what members of this site were talking about on "the other golf site" that is private. Do you?  My point is meant to be that GCA is still the greatest golf architecture site in the world despite the minor issues any of you may have with Pat Mucci. We are all better off knowing him, faults and all. He is not changeable.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob,

I didn't find it funny at all when I heard that is what members of this site were talking about on "the other golf site" that is private. Do you?  My point is meant to be that GCA is still the greatest golf architecture site in the world despite the minor issues any of you may have with Pat Mucci. We are all better off knowing him, faults and all. He is not changeable.

John, I know your story.  I completely misunderstood your post and had no idea about a thread on another site. I happen to like Pat. I look for his threads and find most of them pretty interesting. I've been called worse than a moron so it doesn't phase me . Have a great day.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rob,


I should have never let a red headed sandbagger get under my skin.  Sorry.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I think it's just a matter of decorum and decency to abide by the websites' host wishes. It's not personal or petty.

Joe,

The host's wishes are solely a manifestation of the whiners complaining to him.

Also, I don't think there are any guidelines or contests pertaining to number of substantive threads to earn the right to make up your own rules.

I never made up my own rules.

As early as a dozen+ years ago I initiated threads with truncated titles.

And the only reason that they became more abbreviated was because some whined about the truncated titles.


The threads I create come to me spontaneously, as do the titles.

JakaB gets it

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I would find it very useful if you could, as best as possible, indicate the full substance of a topic in the title so I can help determine if it is of interest to me without clicking on the link. Is this something you could do in future for me please?

Mark,

I'd like to, but doubt I can.

I've always had an independent streak and the thought of capitulating to whiners who have a history of contributing very little to this site is abhorrent to me.

I would think, based upon more than a dozen years of posting threads on this site, that the author's name would be sufficient to peek your interest and cause you to click on the thread.

I know that I'll click on any thread authored by Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Mike Young, Gib Papazian and others.

Hope you understand

[Mark Pritchett]

Pat,


You should eliminate subject titles completely, that should drive the whiners crazier than Trump!


Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,


You should eliminate subject titles completely, that should drive the whiners crazier than Trump!


Mark

Thanks

I may have a solution that I like😜


Mark

[Mark Woodger]

Pat, I would find it very useful if you could, as best as possible, indicate the full substance of a topic in the title so I can help determine if it is of interest to me without clicking on the link. Is this something you could do in future for me please?

Mark,

I'd like to, but doubt I can.

I've always had an independent streak and the thought of capitulating to whiners who have a history of contributing very little to this site is abhorrent to me.

I would think, based upon more than a dozen years of posting threads on this site, that the author's name would be sufficient to peek your interest and cause you to click on the thread.

I know that I'll click on any thread authored by Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Mike Young, Gib Papazian and others.

Hope you understand

not the approach i would follow and for what its worth i don't think its the right one for the greater good but i understand if thats who you are, thats who you are. at least you own it the fact you don't think you can but i would encourage you to still try.
i see the logic of you thinking your name is enough to get me to read your posts but if this msg board was a newspaper, i read an article based on a headline (subject) not the journalist (author).  your posts might be great and some are of interest to me but if i don't know what i am clicking on and you can't give some detail/context, why should i read that post over any other when i only have a limited time to enjoy the site or am looking for a specific topic. as a result i gloss over it and move on rather than think "oh thats of interest i will come back to that next time or when i have found what i am looking for".
Also think of the new people who discover the site they don't know who you are and that they should read your posts. your message/input/thoughts, which without doubt are excellent would/could spread further afield if you give a bit more information upfront.
anyway i have made a request, you have declined to accomodate it, as is your right. so thats my 2 cents on the subject (pun intended) and we will leave it there.
 

[Marty Bonnar]

Oh, the irony...

[Jud_T]

What is the point of......