When did Golf Club Atlas "jump the shark"?

« **Reply #200 on:** February 21, 2004, 07:36:34 AM »

Another thought is to have those that begin threads responsible and capable to moderate their own threads. If I start a thread on the bunkers at a golf course and it turns into a discussion of Healthcare policy or name calling, I have a responsibility/authority as moderator of that particular thread to get the thread back on track or end the thread. If the offending parties don't like it the can IM each other or go OT.

Bill

« **Reply #201 on:** February 21, 2004, 07:47:18 AM »

Interesting idea billg! Perhaps the contributors can take the suggestion through all the pros and cons and add another couple of pages to this thread! I'm just joking, of course, because your idea sounds like one worth discussing---I like it but I'm not sure if I could say why it might work well or not!

« **Reply #202 on:** February 21, 2004, 10:17:15 AM »

I'm amazed at some of the hyperbole being used by people looking to keep the status quo. Nobody (not even Patrick) is suggesting that a) the current forum be rendered irrelevant, or b) that anyone currently part of the forum be kicked out. Some of these arguments sound similar in tone to the some of the arguments used by the NRA to keep the status quo vis-a-vis gun control laws: ridicule your opponents, play heavily upon the specter of lost "freedoms", remain opposed to even the idea of change. As a result, the last six pages or so of this thread have contained rather less honest argument than they should have.

Shivas, the phrase "Jump the Shark" (derived from that Happy Days episode) has just about entered common usage. It is not at all original to this thread - check out www.jumptheshark.com for any number of examples of the metaphor applied to other TV shows and such.

Cheers,
Darren

« **Reply #203 on:** February 21, 2004, 10:43:20 AM »

One of the many reasons some of even the architecture posts get sidetracked is when people make gratuitius non-architectural cheap shots that others must answer.

For instance Darren felt it necessary to inject the NRA into this arguement. It looks like he felt it necesarry to make some sort of political statement. I could just as easily substitute NARAL for NRA in his post and the arguement would rmain the same.

I would not want to turn in my skeet gun.

« **Reply #204 on:** February 21, 2004, 10:43:36 AM »

Jeff Fortson,

You have an open invite to play GCGC with me any time you would like. Hopefully we'll be able to round up a few more GCA.com deviates and have a great day.

My concern about the site was focused on the myriad of off topic threads, dilution of the quality of the threads, and abandonment of the site by some very knowledgeable participants, combined with the potential loss of my foil, TEPaul.

I'll see you this spring, if not sooner (February 28th)

« **Reply #205 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:34:22 AM »

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on February 21, 2004, 10:43:20 AM

One of the many reasons some of even the architecture posts get sidetracked is when people make gratuitius non-architectural cheap shots that others must answer.

For instance Darren felt it necessary to inject the NRA into this arguement. It looks like he felt it necesarry to make some sort of political statement. I could just as easily substitute NARAL for NRA in his post and the arguement would rmain the same.

I would not want to turn in my skeet gun.

Hamilton, I was trying to choose a metaphor which was both accurate and well-known to most people in this forum. No political statement was intended.

« **Reply #206 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:47:50 AM »

Mike Cirba:

Where the hell are you? You're the one who started all this mess and then you conveniently vanished. Now get back on here and take billg's general "moderating" advice and see if you can delete this entire thread since you're the one who wrote the title! What would happen if these entire 9 pages went "Poof"? Somehow we all just might muddle along!

« **Reply #207 on:** February 21, 2004, 02:25:33 PM »

I'm not in favor of an advanced, invitation-only discussion group. (primarily because I wouldn't get in.

)

I am in favor of an alternative forum for half-baked political philosophers.

« **Reply #208 on:** February 21, 2004, 02:31:50 PM »

"I am in favor of an alternative forum for half-baked political philosophers."

Gary:

For God Sake don't despair man, that's exactly what the Golfclubatlas.com discussion group we have has gotten good at and is getting better at every day! Is it possible to get more half-baked than JakaB?

« **Reply #209 on:** February 21, 2004, 02:57:51 PM »

I never knew JakaB engaged in political philosophy. And I am certainly glad TP is feeling better. I thought we were going to lose him after that depressing diatribe back on page 1 of this thread. Carry on with gusto TP, 11000 aint that far away.

« **Reply #210 on:** February 21, 2004, 03:43:53 PM »

Will someone kindly delete Sarge's post?

« **Reply #211 on:** February 21, 2004, 04:05:14 PM »

OK, I've toned it down a little.

« **Reply #212 on:** February 21, 2004, 05:07:52 PM »

Quote from: Shivas on February 21, 2004, 08:47:27 AM

I find it highly ironic that guys who are all for width and angles and differing angles of approach in their golf courses want to morph this joint into a closed-loop discussion of similar views from similarly-situated people

Shivas, this is a pretty good example of how the fear of getting personal is less than positive on the website. If you have something to say about "guys who are all for width . . .," cant you at least tell us who they are? So we know what you are talking about? So they can respond if they want to? . . . . If you are talking about me, you may want to re-read my post.

« **Reply #213 on:** February 21, 2004, 05:13:00 PM »

Why thank you Sarge but no need for me to feel better because I was never feeling poorly in the first place. As for that 'depressing diatribe' as you call it--I don't know how to explain that---perhaps just one of what some of us call a "Cabernet Moment".

« **Reply #214 on:** February 21, 2004, 05:18:05 PM »

"If you have something to say about "guys who are all for width . . .," cant you at least tell us who they are?'

That would be me---I'm all for width!! One time I designed a hole (this for a specific landform) that started at about 135yds and fanned out to about 250 yds!! But I only believe in width where it's called for!! How about that for a clear-cut, definitive architectural statement?

« **Reply #215 on:** February 21, 2004, 05:19:11 PM »

T
I'm kind of planning one of those "cab moments" myself tonight( a 99 Heitz Cellar, filet mig., etc.). Luckily I wont have the PC around. We'll be wishing you were with us.

« **Reply #216 on:** February 21, 2004, 05:21:16 PM »

Sarge, Remember, Taste the hint of Pine!

« **Reply #217 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:11:05 PM »

In my travels around the country with some of the participants here, I have had many interesting discussions that weren't golf-related. I truly enjoy learning about different topics and I can't think of a better group of people to do that with.

« **Reply #218 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:22:45 PM »

Quote from: Darren_Kilfara on February 21, 2004, 11:34:22 AM

Quote from: HamiltonBHearst on February 21, 2004, 10:43:20 AM

Hamilton, I was trying to choose a metaphor which was both accurate and well-known to most people in this forum. No political statement was intended.

Of course it was a political statement and you are being completely disingenuous when you say it was not. I get your philosophy now - you can say whatever you want but you want everyone else to conform to a code of conduct that you devise.

« **Reply #219 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:25:44 PM »

I just went back and read the home page for a first time in a while and it really cleared things up for me:

Quote

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections, including:
. . .
a free access Discussion Group. Please register and share your opinions by posting under your own name but remember: this is an architecture centric web site with non-architecture posts deleted.
. . .

Bottom line for me, this is Ran's website and we are his guests. As such, we owe him the courtesy of respecting his wishes and trying to follow his guidelines.

« **Reply #220 on:** February 21, 2004, 11:52:12 PM »

I'm sick of hearing what we owe Ran...This is not a house..it is an internet site. Ran has the right to turn the thing off anytime he chooses when he feels his return is no longer worth his effort....Ran can sell the web site....an interesting proposition. Could Ran sell this web site to an interested party without gaurentees that people like Pat Mucci and Tom Paul would continue to post...You may duplicate their posts but you can not duplicate the men...This site does not begin and end at your keyboard...I think we owe each other a hell of alot more than we owe Ran...anybody can provide a dance hall but not everybody can do the tango..

« **Reply #221 on:** February 22, 2004, 12:17:23 AM »

JohnK
Interesting thoughts. How much do you know about the genisus of this site...what Ran and John Morrissett did and sacraficed to get it started?

Anyone can provide a dance hall? Clever...but I really don't know what it takes to start a dance hall....and I don't see whole lot of dance halls like this one.

Anyone can get on here and criticize Ran or anyone else for that matter...make a mockery of architectural interest...and draw attention to oneself by acting like a clown.

I give Ran credit for allowing you the freedom to push your agenda (I would have banished you a long time ago)....but then again every good website needs a village idiot.

« **Reply #222 on:** February 22, 2004, 01:00:57 AM »

Wow! That was fast...make a post..and then delete it seconds later.

JohnK
You are not contrarian...I don't know anyone who describes you as a contrarian...a contrarian is someone who asks for serious consideration.

You make numerous posts and then delete most of them in short order...because either they are not serious or you are ashamed and can't stand by what you wrote.

You won't even post under your own name...what does that say about yourself and your agenda?

« **Reply #223 on:** February 22, 2004, 08:22:49 AM »

Something many of us regular posters on here probably forget too quickly is that to the outsider and lurker on this website who's serious about finding out about classic architecture (the site's mission) this discussion section is probably way down the totem pole of interest.

To most around the world I've talked to who look in here but never post, the sections of most interest to them are;

1. The really good course reviews
2. The "In My Opinion" section
3. The Interview section

« **Reply #224 on:** February 22, 2004, 08:49:16 AM »

What the hell, although Barney deleted his post on his agenda I'll answer it anyway;

Sure Barney, I'll take an early morning shot at your mysterious agenda. It's grab as many legs as possible and pull on them as hard as possible. It certainly can't be an agenda of defending Fazio as even you know he's going the way of Pompeii!

News:

Bill Gayne

TEPaul

Darren_Kilfara

HamiltonBHearst

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Darren_Kilfara

TEPaul

Gary_Smith

TEPaul

John_Cullum

americus

John_Cullum

DMoriarty

TEPaul

TEPaul

John_Cullum

Tommy_Naccarato

ed_getka

eye_on_stocks

DMoriarty

JakaB

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul