Mike -

Yes, lying and misrepresentations are a different animal. They should be called out.

Tommy -

Mike doesn't put BS on his own grits, but he'll try to put some on your grits. You gotta watch him closely.

Bob

Actually what I see doesn't matter enough to me to make a big deal out of it but I do think that sometimes this site is a vehicle for growth of such.....because the imposters become infatuated with the business and can't possibly be making a living directly from golf architecture .as hard as it is today in this business..most of us that have been in it can keep enough work so that envy is definitely  not the case.....one just has days where they get tired of the pure BS.....

Mike,
go ahead and call them out.

I, for one, would like to know who the fraudsters are.

FBD.

If they really are full of it, why not?  You certainly are not obligated to do it, but I'd love to read the thread!

Mike Young,

Long and short answer:

YES

Identify it.
Then debunk it with facts and a prudent argument.

Mike,
I do think the BS sort of takes care of itself. For the most part, I believe clients are smart enough to see through it, and the ones that fall for the BS may not be the ones you want.

One of the things that I've read on this site that really hit home was a Dye quote written by Doak that went something like "design ideas are great but you’re not a GCA unless you know how to put ideas into the ground." The pretenders just have no clue how to do that and drawing up a plan and giving it to a construction guy just isn't going to get it done very often. If you can't communicate your ideas clearly to the guys who are building it and if you don't know what it takes to get it built then your just pretending to be a GCA...or you better have someone on staff who knows how to get your ideas built.
That's the way I see it and in today's world it seems like the greatest courses are being built with design and construction integrated at a very high level. Anyone who thinks you'll make a great living in the future by sitting in an office and cranking out plans of really cool golf holes without giving great attention and detail to what to takes to get it built is just out of touch with the real world.  All IMHO of course.  

Mike Young is too much of a gentleman to actually call anybody on this, so he's making his point without getting too specific.

Message sent perhaps!  

As long as john k is on the site, the BS shall continue...

That being said, he's pretty harmless so its fun to keep him around.  

Mike Y. — You are so inspecific that it makes me believe you are seeking attention in some way. I think the best threads here are those that ask a question without it being a treasure hunt.

Get to the point. We'd all like names, addresses and specifics. If you are not inclined to disclose, then cancel out. I have things to do.

I must have been reading this differently. I thought Mike Young posted a question for us to ponder and respond to. My take was that we should consider the pro's, if any, and con's, if any, to anyone on this website pointing out inappropriate credentials, etc. Perhaps the specific question posed wasn't worded well, or I misinterpreted.

Joe

Forrest,
No need to apologize. I'm not seeking any attn.   But Joe interpreted it in the way i intended.  
But let me say this.....personally I don't think we are obligated to expose the BS because I think the site should not be considered a resource.  It is more like a cocktail party.  However if there are those that consider the site a resource then it needs to be exposed.  On this site I can read a few years worth of why some dead guy did this or that and 90% of it can 't be substantiated yet if we consider this site a resource we are recording some bad info.  Also, there is a huge amount of BS that goes on on this site as it relates to "consulting".....some of these clubs don't even know some of these guys are consulting on their course.....seems maybe they just stopped by to see the supt one day and next thing you know it came up on a website.....
Take care,
Mike

Joe Hancock,
I'll take the man at his word when he says that you, out of all the rest of the respondents, have correctly interpreted the questions he asked. I just find it much easier to understand someone's intent when they don't mix declarations with questions. For example, as a preface to Mike's questions he rather emphatically states:  ..."it seems more and more it(GCA) is becoming a sounding board for a lot of smoke and mirrors", and: ..."it is being used as a tool to gain credibility as a golf architect when in reality some of those people have no clue nor have they ever put anything in the ground", and ..."some (of) these guys have websites that at first glance would make a client think these guys had been in this business for a long time yet with a little investigation there is nothing there.....the lines are nothing but BS". There are a couple of others.  
By the time I got around to his questions, "Am I the only one that sees this???  Should the site have an obligation to expose this just as JK exposed the "reciprocal site"..... I was left with the impression that there was a broader agenda than just asking a question or two, a feeling that was reinforced by reading his posts #46 & 47.

Probably my thick skull.      
       

Jim Kennedy,

Well thought out response. Mike can answer for his content, of course.

I read frustration into his post, but focused on the question, I suppose.

Joe