Steve - this discussion group is a public forum. Anyone can read it and if someone makes a public comment on social media or elsewhere, they are entering the public debate and all comment and reaction to that public comment is fair. You did nothing wrong starting this post. It was based on public comments, not private comments. Big difference.
I do think this topic has gotten off subject a little bit.
I think the interesting question is do golf courses now have to make a definitive choice between being a "test-worthy" tournament course or a fun, strategic golf course for the members/public. Due to the quality of today's player and today's equipment, is it now impossible to now merge the two? I think that is the heart of Tom and Brandel's comments.
Personally, I like to think that you can merge them, but I am not sure anymore. What the PGA and USGA are required to do to great golf courses to make them "test-worthy" also makes them silly golf courses in some regard. For instance, I think what Rees Jones did to Bethpage Black is a travesty. The course has the potential to be an enchanting round of golf. Instead, it is a long, boring slog with the worst bunkering of any course that I have played.
Also, let us be entirely clear, most Tour players know little about great golf courses. They look at golf courses in terms of "testing your game". They don't like a thinking game - as it opens them up to the criticism of "what a dumb decision". Further, they don't like randomness, as they don't see it as fair. They want to know the shot that they need to hit and be tested on whether they hit it. I hate that golf so I know when the tour players love a golf course, I will often hate it.