How far Afield Shall We Go?

[Dan Kelly]

Anybody who really thinks that this site should be limited to discussions about GCA should go right now and read Tom Paul's posts on the "immutable laws of golf" thread.  If after reading those you still believe that this site would be better off sticking to its knitting, as it were, well, you probably had an unfortunate accident with a coconut sometime in your life..........

As to this topic, gyro, I'd be happier with the politico-philosophical discussions if there were more evidence of people actually learning from them, rather than using them as an outlet for their already hard and fast views.  Of course, we have this problem with GCA issues too, don't we.....?

I'm with you, buddy (what's the Scots' word for "buddy"?) -- at least on the first point.

As to the second (and its GCA corollary): My guess is that those who are learning from the discussions, rather than trumpeting their hard-and-fast views -- GCA, politico-philosophical, etc. -- are not the loudest voices in those discussions. So you may not notice them learning.

Check the quotation, at the left, from Mr. Paul. That should tell you my position: The further afield we can go, without imperiling the GCA home-base, the better.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Fortson:

I'm one of those who "unfortunately" doesn't believe we should be increasing threads pertaining to matters other than golf architecture. My position is largely, though not entirely, based on private emails from international observers who get turned off by American centric political discussion.

Creating an environment where international participation grows seems like it should be a greater priority than encouraging more discussion of political topics. Can't people go elsewhere for that?

But, I realize my view is in the minority here. Many people don't think any effort to encourage international participation is worth the tradeoff. "Just ignore it" is an argument we frequently hear.

Is there any middle ground?

One observer above argued GCA should have a separate page for off topic material. Fine by me. Another possibility is just to ask people to refrain from mixing political topics with the golf discussion. In other words: eliminate threads like the Fazio one spinning off into discussion about Rush Limbaugh or Iraq.

I am guilty, by the way, of contributing to that mess and in retrospect I regret it. Never again.

Bottom line: those you argue "just ignore it" should support keeping threads clean. Off topic threads should be clearly identified as such and threads which start out as golf architecture related should stay that way.

[TEPaul]

"Is there any middle ground?"

Tim;

Actually there is and an excellent middle ground at that. That would be that the international community (particularly the French) see things "our" way or alternatively the "American" way.

The USA has always been very fair and accomodating with the International community anyway--basically giving them two very distinct choices;

1/ Agree with the USA
2/ Don't agree with USA but act like you agree!  

[Gyrogolf]

Tim,
It is one thing to state that we should not encourage a beginning point in a thread off-topic from golf architecture. It is quite another to try to control the ebb and flow of conversations once they begin.

Think about the last time you sat around with an interesting person and had a chat. Conversations between learned people  almost always meander and vector to and fro because that is the nature of human communication.

We can all be Vulcans here, but that is hardly human, now is it?

It does not always have to come down to politics, but I for one see things quite a bit differently from talks I've had with Goodale over a beer or six.

Same goes for Moriarty, although I would never admit it to him    

As friendships evolve, they rarely become exclusively focused on one thing or common interest. Yes, there is the main basis, but the last time Shivas and I sat around for a few hours, there was not much golf discussed, that is for sure.

As for the site somehow automatically attracting a bunch of dullards spewing their hard-headed dogma at the rest of us, all I can say is that people like that get chased off very quickly because the Treehouse is quite intolerant of inarticulate contributors with shallow perspectives.

Especially if they cannot defend their positions.

"Four legs good, two legs better . . . . . . "

Get my point? This is an uncomfortable place for sheep.

Maybe this was a half-baked idea and Patrick is right. But again, the last time I sat down and had dinner with Patrick, I found him every bit as articulate, interesting and opinionated on a variety of subjects as golf architecture.

Same goes for Wigler and Shooter.

Let's keep one thing in mind: There are plenty of things to explore and massage that have nothing to do with the visceral emotions of politics.

And even when we are playing political ping pong, everyone gets a chance to view another perspective.

Long ago, I quit reading the headlines of newspapers and have come to focus on the Op Ed pages. Yet 90% of the editorial or opinion pieces I read in the Chronicle are mushy, poorly reasoned and transparently misleading when compared to the stuff on this board.

I'm not ready to give up on this idea just yet.