Is there accountability on this site?

[michael j fay]

People have made statements as if they are facts on this site on numerous occasions, when in fact the statements are nothing more than rehashed rumors. My question is: Is there any accountability. Can one participant slander another using unnamed and secret sources and then be allowed to run with his drivel as if it were acceptable fact?

On more than one occasion my integrity and honesty has been questioned by some of the participants. Frankly, I have a reputation that is rather good especially in matters of finance. I value that reputation and feel that if anyone is to question it they should show cause or shut up.

I do not think that is asking too much.

[RJ_Daley]

Mr. Fay, no I don't think that is too much to ask, that people keep their comments confined to demonstrable facts.  

I was just researching the issue of demamation and libel in a totally out of the GCA realm of discussion.  It seems the landscape is full of defamation lawsuits from issues that arose on the internet.  But, the problem is becoming so ubiquitous that the cost of the lawsuits, the lack of meaningful awards when slander can be tracked down in cyberspace, and the problem with reverse negative impact of calling to public attention the false accusations where the public becomes only aware of the negative falsity and not the remedy or correction of the misstatement, that the whole concept becomes futile to pursue.

I personally think that new attitudes about libel, slander and defamation have to be developed.  Integrity, courtesy and respect would be a fine measure of cure if more widely practiced, but we all know in our coarse society, that isn't going to be the norm.  

Yet, we also know that sometimes wrong doing, and abuses or misdeeds clamor to be exposed.  There are many strategies by legalistic types that try to use defamation suits to silence necessary desent.  It is quite a balancing act.

So, we may be better served to let our deeds speak for themselves and let naysayers and detractors or defamers die on the vine of the ignored and irrelavant.  Sort of like the "swifties".

[A_Clay_Man]

Deleted my initial post. Seems like I was gullable again. Go Figure

[Brent Hutto]

I've participated in various forms of Internet-based discussion groups for a decade and a half. The traditional form of accountability that is practiced is for incorrect or unsubstantiated claims to be challenged by any and all persons who are knowledgable as to the true facts of the matter. It is ultimately a self-correcting medium.

In my experience, attempts to set up a structure for vetting information or acting as a gatekeeper doom the discussion to irrelevance. The usual end state of such arrangements is that a certain body of beliefs becomes the approved gospel and the only discussion that remains is of the "angels on the head of a pin" variety with new ground no longer being broken.

It is certainly possible that someone could read some scurrilous statement or assertion about you and choose to believe it in the absence of any subtantiation, even after you set the record straight and/or others step in to debunk the claim. In the case of someone like that who believes what they choose to believe against all evidence to the contrary, it really isn't worth worrying about their opinion of you. The best thing to do is put the true facts in evidence, accept any collaboration offered from others who share your perspective and not lose any sleep over whatever irrational prejudices a few ignorant souls may indulge in.

[Bob_Huntley]

Michael,

I believe I have read thousands of threads on this site, those of RJDaley and Brent Hutto are as erudite and informative as any I have come across.

When it comes to unwarranted or untrue criticism, I do believe it is up you to skewer it from the outset. It can be done without rancor and with a witticism. No better example are the eternal quips from the Disraeli/Gladstone debates. My favorite was:

Once at a social gathering, Gladstone said to Disraeli, "I predict, Sir, that you will die either by hanging or of some vile disease". Disraeli replied, "That all depends, sir, upon whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Benjamin Disraeli

It is not always easy, but a demonstrable attack on a false accuser will generally end the calumny.

[TEPaul]

Michael:

I agree with BobH---that post by Brent Hutto is really all the answer you need to your question. Don't lose any sleep over some of what's said on here in that vein, believe me the sleep is a lot more meaningful.  

Don't forget, give me a holler any time you get down this way, we'll go check out some architecture!

[Frank_Stanger]

Mr. Hutto, Mr. Paul, et.al.,

All well and good.

But perhaps Mr. Fay, has the right to ask the same question as Ronald Reagan's former Labor Secretary.

During Ronald Reagan's Presidency, Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan was accused of corruption, but eventually, after a lot of publicity, the indictment was thrown out by the Judge. Donovan asked the question, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

If you don't stand up for civil public discourse - if we all don't - who will?

[Bill_McBride]

You always have to consider the source.  Of course Michael Fay may not have the advantage of knowing the source as well as some of the regular habitues of this treehouse.  Brent's suggestion -- skewer the source of the calumny at first opportunity by firing back -- is the best.  The alternative may be avoiding the site and that is certainly not going to add to our collective education.

[ian]

Micheal,


I have had problems with a newspaper writer being completely wrong with his reporting on a project (he never called). It is very tough to get a retraction, a correction, or to have a response printed; but here you or I can post a response to something that we feel is incorrect, slanderous, or simply not true. I find this a very important benefit of this site.

I do feel people are accountable for what they say on this site, simply because the post under (theoretically ) their own name.

(I just read the source of this thread and removed my last comment about confronting them)

[Jeff_Mingay]

Just yesterday, Ian Andrew and I were driving home from looking at the site of a potential golf course development together, and he labelled himself a poor writer.

On the contrary. I think the above post was concise and to the point  

[TEPaul]

Ian Andrews is not a poor writer at all--but like John Kennedy he's not the best speller.

[Bob_Huntley]

Bill McBride writes,

"Brent's suggestion -- skewer the source of the calumny at first opportunity by firing back -- is the best."

Now you see how things get F***ed up, it wasn't Brett at all that suggested that course of action.  

[Lou_Duran]

"So, we may be better served to let our deeds speak for themselves and let naysayers and detractors or defamers die on the vine of the ignored and irrelavant.  Sort of like the "swifties' ". RJ Daley

Is this the type of statement of opinion presented as fact that Mr. Fay alludes to?  We should recognize that a vast majority of debate on this site is over opinions and preferences.  It is human nature to look for arguments, data, and statistics which support our view of the world, and believe that ours is truth cemented in fact.  Likewise, we dismiss summarily the opinions of others with whom we disagree, at times attributing all sorts of defficiencies and dark motives to them.

We are all accountable on this site, particularly those of us who have the temerity to show our faces at the various outings.  Hopefully, most of us consider the reasonableness of the arguments or positions being presented and not just who the poster, whether he is being politically correct, or if he is a part of the favored fraternity.

Most of us who have played and practiced with some regularity developed certain callouses on our hands.  Perhaps we should also develop thicker skin elsewhere and be a bit less sensitive.  Even the most ignorant among us believe that they too are special.  And that their opinions are facts.  

[JakaB]

I hope you people that are so quick to defend Fay know what he said to Tommy...of course we all know and love Tommy so there never was a need to defend him....If I was Mr. Fay I would worry more about accountability in the world of friendship and honor than on this site..

[Robert Thompson]

I don't know Mr. Fay (aside from owning one of his books) and all I know about Tommy is what I read here. Either way, some accusations have been made by Mr. Naccarato with little to back them up. It pretty hard to defend against innuendo and speculation.
It seems to me that these personal attacks should find another forum, along with the typical posts by Mr. Kavanaugh that are aimed simply to illicit a group of angry and agitated posters.
It is hurting this site and making it harder and harder to find something worth participating in or following.
Why don't we actually talk about golf architecture? Isn't that the point?


Robert

[JakaB]

Robert,

Why should I just take peoples word as fact that Ross is a great architect....I honestly don't think he is a damn bit better than Bell or Stiles.....As a matter of fact I don't think he was as good as Stiles because of the Raynor influence you see in Waynes work that is absent from Donalds....but I've been trying to be careful in my approach..

[TEPaul]

I don't have any idea what this issue is about between Michael Fay and TommyN but when these kinds of things happen on here, and they have in the past and probably will again in the future, I think the best thing to do is for the two of them to take the issue off this discussion section and go to the IM section or regular email and try to work it out.

Bringing their issue onto this discussion section that virtually makes the rest of the contributors on here some kind of potential jury and judge probably isn't the best thing for the two who have a dispute and it's definitely not a good thing for this discussion section.

My advice to Michael is for him to delete this entire thread (I think he's the only one who can since he posted it) and to work this out off-line. If you two try that I'm betting you'll work it out just fine. I did that a couple of times and it worked fine off-line. The only time it didn't is when rpurd actually cut and pasted our conversation off-line right onto the discussion section here. Now that's a definite mistake and I hope no one does that again, as that is certainly not in the best interest of GOLFCLUBATlAS's discussion section.

[Norbert P]

  "The secret of life is honesty.  If you can fake that, you've got it made."

  George Burns

 Say "Goodnight" Gracie.  

 "Goodnight, Gracie"

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Fay,

You ask:  "Is there accountability on this site."   I am currently considering the very same question.  

In particular, I wonder about the consequences of your recent comments to both Tommy Nacarrato and John Kavanaugh.  Granted, not many punches are pulled on this discussion group.  In fact, my comments have landed below the belt more than a few times, as have Tommy's, John's, and many other of the valued contributors.  Fortunately, most have been quick to forgive for the sake of preserving a lively, insightful, and open forum.   In fact many of the most intense battles have raged between those who have the highest levels of respect for one another.  

This being said, your comments go well beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum, even for a rough and tumble forum such as this.   You had no cause and have no right to personally attack and insult either one of them the way you did.   Further, your outlandish threat to sue Tommy is beyond the pale; nothing but a bully's posturing aimed at  silencing him and anyone else who might have something to say on the issue.

Moreover and perhaps most significantly, your boorish and vulgar comments and threats were part of a discussion regarding Donald Ross and the Donald Ross Society.  You are Executive Director of that organization and therefore speak on their behalf.  

John questions Ross's ability as a router so you condescendingly accuse him of not being qualified to judge a Ross routing, of shooting off his mouth, of being stupid, ignorant, scatalogical, a bobblehead, a sick mind, a head full of  "fecal matter.  Surely this is beneath the Donald Ross Society?  Surely it is improper for the Executive Director of the Donald Ross Society to treat anyone this way under any circumstances, let alone during a discussion of Donald Ross and the Donald Ross Society.

Of course your comments to Tommy are much worse.  What in heaven or on earth gives you the right to pronounce Tommy or anyone else "personally a failure in [their] life."  

And your righteous indignation at having your leadership ability and decisions questions is appalling.  You run the most well known such society in the country-- the flagship of such organizations.  To my mind, you should expect critique by Tommy or anyone one else who is passionate about the topic, whether you think them a  "fat assed nobody" or not.  

Statements (and apparently attitudes) like yours are in large part responsible for the blue blood, snobby, better-than-though reputation of golf.  I very much doubt the Donald Ross Society would appreciate their charge calling a gca icon like Tommy a "fat assed nobody."  

And to top it off you threaten Tommy with a lawsuit; insults, arrogance, and intimidation included:

As for accusations of this nature, if you make them in a public or private forum ever again and I find out that you have I will sue you for everything you are worth. If you feel that I am trying to bully you or scare you off just open that fat ass mouth of yours again and we will have at it.

I must be missing something, namely your supposed grounds for suing.  I've read the posts more than a few times, and it seems that you and Tommy pretty much agree on the facts.  Tommy asked you to prove that you did not fly around the country on the Donald Ross Society's dime, and you admitted that you did:  "From time to time when I was required to travel on Donald Ross Society business the Society payed for the travel expense."   Tommy asked you for prove that you paid your own expenses at DRS tournaments and you admitted that you "built them into the fees of the tournament."

I'm not currently a practicing attorney, so someone else will have to fill us in on the legal interpretation, but I am very confused as to why you would sue him when you agree with his version of the facts.  Sure you disagree as to whether accepting reimbursement for such expenditures is the right thing to do, but this is just a matter of opinion, isn't it?   I have a hard time understanding how a man of your sophistication  could really think he could sue someone for offering an opinion with which you disagree.  Maybe one of the posting lawyers will clear it up for us.  

In summary, your comments were rude, vulgar, in bad taste, and generally beyond the pale.   They also show incredibly bad judgment for one in your position.  

[Bill_McBride]

Bob, it's true you used the word "skewer" rather than Brent, but before you posted he said, in effect, it's best to fire back rather than just accepting what somewhat says that you know to be in error.  At least that's how I read it.  If that's f*cked up, so be it!

[michael j fay]

Mr. Moriarty:

I have read your post and must agree that som of my remarks are strong and disagreeable.

I will not back away from a situation wherein I have been called in a veiled manner a thief and a liar. Neither TN or JK have presented any proof of any wrongdoing but rather have repeated insinuations and rumors.

As I have said, I have a reputation and it is the only one I have. I reserve my right to defend it from this type of nonsense.

Suppose I were to say that a source that has sworn me to secrecy tells me that D Moriarty is a pedophile. Should I trumpet this in a public forum without any proof? Indeed, I say not.

As for the normal expenses incurred by the Executive Director of a National Golf Society, I will say that I have only covered expenses that are ussual and customary.

In my business career I ran an Insurance Agency that collected premium form clients and payed the Insurance Companies. At its' height this Agency had in excess of $ 8,000,00 in annual billings. Iwas the President and well compensated for my efforts. In the 16 years that I ran this agency there was never a hint of financial inpropriety. During the first twelvw years that I ran the Donald Ross Society I paid all of the office expense of the Society out of my own pocket, there was not enough funds to cover these expenses, so I did so gladly. Does this sound like someone who would risk his reputation for an odd airline ticket?

Frankly, I have read on these pages the same veiled accusations in the past, I am sick of them, they have no basis in fact and those that continue to bring them up do so to hurt my reputation. As I said before, I have had enough.

I have never met either TN or JK and neither has  ever had anything to do with the Donald Ross Society. Please tell me where they get off making these libelous claims?

[michael j fay]

I'm fat as well!

[Mike Benham]

This is a short flare up, a kitchen fire.  Break out the extinguishers and put it out. Nobody needs to go to def-con 3 for this.  Save it for something really important like if Beverly decides they don't like the restoration and hires Dick Nugent to do a re-creation.  

So Shivas - how many Child Psychology courses did you take?

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Shivas, you are going to be a good father/parent.  But having said that be sure to let the local golf pro teach your children how to putt.  I am sure you have already concluded that.

[David Wigler]

MJF,

Nothing personal but as far as accountablity goes, Tommy accused you of paying for expenses out of DRS funds and you admitted that you did (With the caviet that they were legit expenses).  JakaB accused you of not fighting for French Lick and you refused to post the letter that proves you did.  

The only comments that are not accountable are your over-the-top and juvenile criticisms of Tommy and John.  That is my two cents!