1. Ok Pat, give me specific, irrefutable proof of where I said I played Augusta. It's time to see it, you keep saying I said it, versus me ACTUALLY having said it is an outright lie. Step up now and PROVE me wrong.
2. From what I have seen of Augustas sand, I would qualify it as fluffy. Not having played it does not change my opinion. You telling me I am wrong does not change my opinion. Remember, what one might consider fluffy, another might consider firm. Last time I checked, fluffy was not an imperical measure. Are all pillows fluffy? Are all feathers fluffy?
3. I will quote you here "discovery process allows you to place the opinion in context, to see if it's FACT ". Where on earth does it say someones opinion MUST be factual? Are you that daft? It's like someone saying they dislike Mozart. They are not wrong, they don't like him for whatever reason regardless of what others say.
4. You say I "deliberately misrepresent the quality and consistency of the bunkers at ANGC". How on earth can you claim so? My opinion is just that, based on seeing it in person, watching players play from it, seeing caddies rake it. The sand at ANGC is fluffier (sp) than the sand at MVGC. End of discussion, can you disprove what I just said using only facts?
5. "Where on # 18 do you find sod stacked bunkers ?" Fool, go back and read what I wrote, once again, do NOT misquote nor take out of context what I write. It was an example, hypothetical. Yet again, you are trying to spin this to your advantage.
6. "Are you foolish enough to think that I don't get emails and IM's supporting my position" Remember Pat, without factual proof, you must be a liar. Prove me wrong on this. Turnaround is fair play no?
7. "When you fail to answer question after question regarding the basis of you opinion, it calls into question the viability of its foundation." I have answered that question a multiple of times, you just don't agree with my answer so yet again you think you can sit, snipe, dodge, regroup, re-direct and in general be a bore.
8. "If the superintendent at Muirfield were to declare that the bunker sand at # 18 is identical to the bunker sand found elsewhere on the golf course, what does that say about your opinion ?" IF is a VERY speculative position to put yourself into. Isn't it true (according to you?) that unless it is capable of being proven 100% it isn't true? Therefore, regardless of what JR says, we can't take even that as a factual statement. Apparently, we will need a third party lab to either confirm or deny this.
9. "t's not about being right or wrong, or being happy.
It's about being able to distinguish and weight fact based opinions from non-fact based speculative opinions.
It's about learning as much as you can about the feature in question before rendering a final opinion. It's about credibility and intellectual honesty.
My opinion of the bunker complex at 18 is fact. I dislike it. How can you possibly say I am wrong for disliking it after having played it?
Lastly Pat, please contact me via email. I think everyone except you is tired of reading this. I am happy to take this off line and discuss it one on one with you. Maybe, just maybe, I might even take you to MVGC so you & I can investigate this in person.
I NEVER said I played Augusta, nor did I imply I played there, so go screw on your "being outed as a phony" comment, you are way off base, as usual!
Yes you did. You said that the sand in the bunkers at ANGC was "fluffy". How would you be qualified to make that statement unless you had played out of them ?
You offered, as FACT, that the bunker sand at ANGC was "fluffy", which happens to be a completely erroneous assessment.[/color]
1. Regarding "intimate views". I am the one who played there 3 days in a row. I am not the one who made the quote based on a blimp shot. Quite frankly, I still stick to my guns in saying if HE thought it was ugly from a blimp shot, thats HIS choice, not yours.
That wasn't the question. I indicated that had the post asked the question in the context of an aerial perspective, that I'd accept the "aerial" opinions, but it didn't.[/color]
2. The "discovery process" as you quote has zero to do with a persons feelings, he hates the look, no amount of discovery makes him wrong, jesus, get with it Pat. And since when does a "discussion" have to have a "discovery process?" This is a freaking discussion board about golf architecture, NOT a court of law. Maybe you need to get back into the law game so you can have all the "discovery processes" your little heart desires and likewise, spend less time on this site, therefore saving us all your mindless BS.
The discovery process allows you to place the opinion in context, to see if it's FACT based or speculative, and to assess it's credibility.[/color]
4. I can make the statement that the sand at Augusta is "fluffy" It's my opinion you fool! No, I have never played there, however I have been there many times, and my opinion is that sand is fluffy and thats all that counts.
Then your opinion is foolish.
If you've never played from the bunkers at ANGC how can you claim that they are "fluffy" ? You opinion isn't FACT based. They are anything but "fluffy"
If you want to make a fool of yourself, and make a proclamation with respect to bunkers that you've never played out of, go ahead, but that's intellectually dishonest, and you know it. You can defend your erroneous, non-fact based opinion all you want, but, in the final analysis, your opinion is dead wrong.[/color]
5. How dare you say that I "deliberatley misrepresented"the sand at Augusta vs. MVGC. Again fool, those are my opinions or views. I am still entitled to having and expressing my opinion right? Or did we just re-draft the constitution and I wasn't aware of it?
You did deliberately misrepresent the quality and consistency of the bunkers at ANGC. You proclaimed, as fact, that they were "fluffy" when you never actually played out of them.
You're free, under the constitution to misrepresent anything you want, and I'm equally free to point out that the facts don't support your position, that your opinion is invalid in light of the facts about those bunkers[/color]
6. Pat, I "get it" apparently though, my views aren't in alignment with yours therefore I am wrong? Grow the hell up.
It's not that your views don't agree with mine, it's that you support speculative, non-fact based opinions as having the same weight and credibility as fact based opinions.[/color]
7. I never said there was a "prescribed formula" for anything on a golf course, let alone bunkers specifically. I merely stated that the NEW bunkers are not in keeping with the OLD bunkers therefore I FEEL as if they are not original, nor do I think they are in keeping with the rest of the course. It's akin to having sharp edged bunkers with white sand ALL over a golf course, yet BAM, all of a sudden there is one stacked sod bunker. Looks out of place to me, again, pardon me for having an opinion.
Your example is one of extremes.
Where on # 18 do you find sod stacked bunkers ?
You objected to their depth but never addressed the questions I asked regarding their depth and the depth of other bunkers on the golf course[/color]
8. Pat, regarding being a spokesmanb, no one apponted me, however, based on getting numerous email (private) from other members of this site in support of my position, as well as stating they are tired of your games also, I think it's safe to say I am noit the only one who feels that way? No, don't even ask for names nor copies of the emails. They are all private documents.
Are you foolish enough to think that I don't get emails and IM's supporting my position, and your foolishness or lack of understanding about the architectural features and their spacial relationships to one another, together with your equating fact based opinions with speculative, non-fact based opinions ?[/color]
9. I have no lack of understanding that would make me feel as if I am "wrong" on the 3 items I presented as reasons for them being ugly. You say my reasons were proven wrong. When? Where and by Whom?
When you fail to answer question after question regarding the basis of you opinion, it calls into question the viability of its foundation.
If the superintendent at Muirfield were to declare that the bunker sand at # 18 is identical to the bunker sand found elsewhere on the golf course, what does that say about your opinion ?[/color]
Pat, you are the king of the world. You are the best, you are never wrong on anything. Your views are what the rest of ours should be. We love you Pat!
Has that last paragraph made you happy? I hope so, because if thats all it takes to make you go away on this tired issue, I would be happy to have it carved in granite for you, just ask and it's done.
NO.
It's not about being right or wrong, or being happy.
It's about being able to distinguish and weight fact based opinions from non-fact based speculative opinions.
It's about learning as much as you can about the feature in question before rendering a final opinion. It's about credibility and intellectual honesty.[/color]
SJ McCarthy,