[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick - still here, still refusing to answer my question? If this were in person I'd say that's rather rude.  Of course on-line etiquette remains far different.

 

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's the statement once again.  

Rick Shefchik,

I'd agree with you.
The numerous boulders detract from a panorama that bears little or no resemblence to the look they present.


Is that a judgment based on a photo, or not?

NO, it's a statement of fact.

Due the bolders appear anywhere in the expansive backround ?

Answer: NO

Hence, the boulders in the foreground bear no resemblance to the land form in the backround.

That's a fact, not a judgement.[/color]

Like I say, we can discuss the accuracy of the judgment if you wish, but only after you answer this.  I'll stop the repetition - and get into why Bob does not agree with you (which any second grader with reading abilities can discern), why your judgment is quite inaccurate (which I base on seeing the hole in person, as does Bob), and teach you how to discern what words refer to (when I say negatives, I am referring to how YOU and Rick see these based on a distorted photo, not how I see them when I am there in person) but only if you answer the first question.

Nonsense, you referenced the positives and the negatives with the boulders being the negatives, not the opinions of Rick and myself.   Reread your own words.

And now you claim this photo is suddenly "distorted"
How is the photo "distorted" ?

What other photos are "distorted" ?
And, in what way ?[/color]

Your wussiness here is quite unseemly.  It's OK to be a little inconsistent, Pat.

I've been unwaiveringly consistent.[/color]

TH

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

How was my impression of the photo inaccurate ?
[/color]

You didn't think the cart path was intrusive in the photo, and therefore that the pervasive existence of the path in the photo impaired the effectiveness of the photo as a testament to the effectiveness of a tree management program.  

See my "plastic surgery" example in the referenced thread for a similar situation.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Well, I'll give you credit for trying to answer.

But since when does a statement that something detracts from something else become a statement of fact?

You can continue to talk about backgrounds and foregrounds and whatever else you want.  I'll say it again - that is an entirely different issue.

The issue is this:  you made a statement that "the boulders detract from the panorama."

If that's a fact in your world, well... it's a strange world you inhabit.

Face it Pat - you made a judgment based on a photo.  Your continual denial of this is putting the W in the word Wussy, or D in the word Deluded.  I expect more from you.

Just acknowledge this and again, we can get into the accuracy of it.  You remain wrong - and your parsing of my words is wildly speculative (you seem to know what I mean better than I do now?) and incorrect - but such remains a secondary issue.  We simply cannot move on the secondary until we settle the primary.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

So this is what a steel cage death match is like.

Cool !

 
Most people give in to Pat, finding he's not worth the trouble and assuming he has more stamina than they do.  I know I do most of the time.  Today I have nothing better to do.  And he remains so obviously hypocritical, well... I don't expect him to ever admit it - it's just not in his nature - but well, it is worth trying.  See, I really like the guy... this remains a labor of love... a little softening can only help the man.  But then again, I've always had the feeling he has plenty of friends and enjoys being disliked in here.  I just love to ruin his secrets there, also.  

So expect me to give up also soon enough.  No one has yet succeed in getting Pat to admit he was wrong or inconsistent... But I do like tilting at windmills sometimes.


That you can't distinguish and/or differentiate the issues and the context of the two issues, Boca Rio and Monterey Penisula Club, speaks to your lack of understanding on the architectural issues.

Reread the Boca Rio thread.  Then reread this thread.
If you still can't distinguish the differences in the core issue in the two threads then, there's not much sense in discussing the issue/s with you because they're beyond your grasp.

Go back and reread both threads.

By the way, I"ve answered your question, but, you've never answered any of the ones I asked.

Do the boulders in the foreground appear anywhere in the backround in the picture being discussed ?

Does the foreground bear ANY resemblence to the backround ?

Simple Yes or No answers will suffice.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:

I found no reference to the Boca Rio thread in Tom Zeni's post, nor is there any in mine.  Chill, my friend.  I could give a rat's ass about what was said about Boca Rio.  That's Kevin's battle with you, not mine.

And you have NOT answered my question - not satisfactorily anyway.  That is unless you consider saying something "detracts" is a statement of fact.

You can't possibly mean that... can you?

If you do consider that to be a fact, then I know you have no cognitive reasoning abilities, nor correct English vocabulary.  Thus I find it not worth my time to go further on this issue with you.

Just admit that's a judgment, and then we can move on to better, more interesting issues.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, I'll give you credit for trying to answer.

But since when does a statement that something detracts from something else become a statement of fact?

In the same way that spots on a window detract from the view from the window[/color]

You can continue to talk about backgrounds and foregrounds and whatever else you want.  I'll say it again - that is an entirely different issue.

No, it's not, it's a critical part of the issue.
Didn't you read my words where I stated that the rocks in the foreground bear NO resemblence to anything in the backround ?

There's a total break in continuity and the boulders create that break.

Bob Huntley and you admited same, and now you're trying to deny your own words.

You want to ignore that the boulders in the foreground bear no resemblence to the backround because it undermines and destroys your argument.[/color]

The issue is this:  you made a statement that "the boulders detract from the panorama."

It is a fact.
Do you think otherwise ?
Bob Huntley doesn't, and you agreed with him.
Now you're unequivically stating that the boulders in the foreground don't detract from the view in the backround.
You must be kidding or blind.[/color]

If that's a fact in your world, well... it's a strange world you inhabit.

It's called reality.[/color]

Face it Pat - you made a judgment based on a photo.  Your continual denial of this is putting the W in the word Wussy, or D in the word Deluded.  I expect more from you.

You just don't get it.
You keep denying the obvious.
So obvious that Bob Huntley described the many boulders in the photo as being "too busy" and you agreed with that.
But now, you're changing your mind and declaring that the boulders have absolutely no negative impact on the view in the backround.  And you're calling me delusional ?[/color]

Just acknowledge this and again, we can get into the accuracy of it.  You remain wrong - and your parsing of my words is wildly speculative (you seem to know what I mean better than I do now?) and incorrect - but such remains a secondary issue.  We simply cannot move on the secondary until we settle the primary.

You can say I'm wrong all you want, you've done it before, but, it doesn't alter the facts.  The boulders in the foreground bear no resemblence to the panoramic view in the backround.

You appear to be the sole supporter of the absurd position that they do.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

OK, we've gone on far enough.

Saying something detracts is an opinion, a judgment.  How do you know someone doesn't like spots on a window?  How do you know a golfer doesn't love boulders?

You've reached new levels of absurdity this time, Pat.

You can be wrong, and inconsistent.  You are not perfect.

You were inconsistent today.  You should not denigrate others for making judgments based on photos when you did so yourself.

And the bottom line is this:  read Mr. Huntley's words, and mine, and you will see that we agree that the overall panorama on that golf hole is wonderful, and if those boulders detract (which I don't agree with, btw), in the end it is like a spot on the window looking out at 16 Cypress.  Only a fool would get preoccupied with such.

And I know you are not a fool.  You're a stubborn hard-head with a patent inability to admit any weakness, but you are not a fool.

TH

ps - I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.  The vast majority of your last post has me saying things I never said.

[Kevin_Reilly]

you are not a fool.

Careful Tom, just as we both know one cannot evaluate a hole by looking at a picture, the same applies to judgements about people based on posts on internet discussion boards.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

you are not a fool.

Careful Tom, just as we both know one cannot evaluate a hole by looking at a picture, the same applies to judgements about people based on posts on internet discussion boards.  

Kevin,

Would you cite for me an example, any example, of where I evaluated a hole by looking at a picture.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Kevin:

Well, of course that's true... but in this case, I have played the course in question.  That is, I have met the man and spent a good deal of time with him.  Stubborn he is, foolish he's not.

 

BTW Patrick, here are Bob's words:


I think Tom Zeni and Tom H., were being magnanimous when they denied that the 11th hole looked busy, but in all honesty the plethora of tees, the waste areas and rock surrounds make it so. However, the sheer joy of being on an elevated tee, whose size is as that of a good size SUV, with a drop off in front, to a diabolical green 180 yds away with a mile of ocean-front in sight, more than makes up for its deficiencies.


Yes, he does say it looks busy - which I then disagreed with, btw.  But do you just gloss over his second sentence?  Let me spell the last part out for you:

"...more than makes up for its deficiencies."

So since nitpicking is your trade, well of course he did acknowledge a little business there.  I never denied that.  All I ever said was that such business is distorted by the picture.  That is, it's far greater in the picture than it is in person.  Bob and I might disagree in our reasons - though I doubt that - if he'd answer my questions right after his post, I feel confident he'd agree with me - but we agree in the overall assessment:  which is that if there is business on this hole, it is a negative that is outweighed easily by the other positives.

So I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest.  Is it that the rocks make the hole look busy in the overall?  If so, I'd disagree.  Is it that the rocks add a business at all?  Of course they do - and I've never disagreed with that.  I just said that the business exists FAR more in the photo than it does in real life.  Thus of course the rocks exist, I'm just not sure I'd say they make the hole look "busy."  To me they sure don't in person - and I explained why (back tee above, lower tee in front of them). But if one wants to call them busy based on the photo, that's fine.  I'd just even refer that person to Mr. Huntley's words, in that the overall is still quite positive.

And of course mine are opinions, not facts.  I purport to no statements of fact here, other than this:  saying something detracts remains also a judgment and an opinion and is certainly not any statement of fact.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

How was my impression of the photo inaccurate ?
[/color]

You didn't think the cart path was intrusive in the photo, and therefore that the pervasive existence of the path in the photo impaired the effectiveness of the photo as a testament to the effectiveness of a tree management program.  [/color]

I think Kelly Blake Moran's response # 43 adequately addresses the issue.

And, he was including you when he used the phrase, "you people"

That you didn't see the difference in the before and after photos of the trees is a shortcoming on your part, not mine.[/color]

See my "plastic surgery" example in the referenced thread for a similar situation.

[Kevin_Reilly]

you are not a fool.

Careful Tom, just as we both know one cannot evaluate a hole by looking at a picture, the same applies to judgements about people based on posts on internet discussion boards.  

Kevin,

Would you cite for me an example, any example, of where I evaluated a hole by looking at a picture.[/color]



Patrick,

Would you cite for me an example, any example, of where I said that you evaluated a hole by looking at a picture.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

How was my impression of the photo inaccurate ?


You didn't think the cart path was intrusive in the photo, and therefore that the pervasive existence of the path in the photo impaired the effectiveness of the photo as a testament to the effectiveness of a tree management program.  

I think Kelly Blake Moran's response # 43 adequately addresses the issue.
And, he was including you when he used the phrase, "you people"


Patrick, he didn't say "you people", he said "you have people post..." in a completely different context.  I think you may ask the court to withdraw that piece of evidence. If you can supply another exerpt that shows KBM was talking about me and Scott, then I'm all eyes.


That you didn't see the difference in the before and after photos of the trees is a shortcoming on your part, not mine.[/color]

I think Darva's last post in the thread was on point...in fact I know it was because you didn't respond to it (the way you usually handle "gamewinning" arguments).  

Darva was pointing out that the "before" pictures in that essay looked as though they were taken during a month-long strike by the course's greens crew.  The tees and grounds were shabby.  The course in the "after" pictures was very well maintained...not an apples-to-apples comparison...tree trimming wasn't the only thing that had happened at BR.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

How was my impression of the photo inaccurate ?


You didn't think the cart path was intrusive in the photo, and therefore that the pervasive existence of the path in the photo impaired the effectiveness of the photo as a testament to the effectiveness of a tree management program.  

I think Kelly Blake Moran's response # 43 adequately addresses the issue.
And, he was including you when he used the phrase, "you people"


Patrick, he didn't say "you people", he said "you have people post..." in a completely different context.  I think you may ask the court to withdraw that piece of evidence. If you can supply another exerpt that shows KBM was talking about me and Scott, then I'm all eyes.


That you didn't see the difference in the before and after photos of the trees is a shortcoming on your part, not mine.[/color]

I think Darva's last post in the thread was on point...in fact I know it was because you didn't respond to it (the way you usually handle "gamewinning" arguments).  [/color]

Kevin,

Your process for drawing conclusions is flawed and needs a lot of work.

My reasons for not responding to Darva had nothing to do with the question she posed.

More was going on.
The golf course was being regrassed and bunkers were having the sand excavated and replaced.

What's that got to do with the tree clearing project ? [/color]

Darva was pointing out that the "before" pictures in that essay looked as though they were taken during a month-long strike by the course's greens crew.  The tees and grounds were shabby.  The course in the "after" pictures was very well maintained...not an apples-to-apples comparison...tree trimming wasn't the only thing that had happened at BR.

It was being regrassed and bunkers were having the sand excavated and replaced.

What's that got to do with the tree clearing program ?

Certainly your eye should have been able to discern the impact of the tree clearing program, especially when the photos were taken from virtually the same location.

Obviously you were fixated on cart paths and missed the impact of the tree clearing program.[/color]

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin Reilly,

When Bob Huntley, a member for many, many years, states that the boulders present too busy of a view, I'm satisfied that my impression was accurate.

You've been a BR member for many, many years, but your impression of that photo was inaccurate, so I think that illustrates that there isn't a perfect correlation between years of membership and the ability to accurately analyze a photo.

How was my impression of the photo inaccurate ?


You didn't think the cart path was intrusive in the photo, and therefore that the pervasive existence of the path in the photo impaired the effectiveness of the photo as a testament to the effectiveness of a tree management program.  

I think Kelly Blake Moran's response # 43 adequately addresses the issue.
And, he was including you when he used the phrase, "you people"


Patrick, he didn't say "you people", he said "you have people post..." in a completely different context.  I think you may ask the court to withdraw that piece of evidence. If you can supply another exerpt that shows KBM was talking about me and Scott, then I'm all eyes.


That you didn't see the difference in the before and after photos of the trees is a shortcoming on your part, not mine.[/b]

I think Darva's last post in the thread was on point...in fact I know it was because you didn't respond to it (the way you usually handle "gamewinning" arguments).  

Kevin,

Your process for drawing conclusions is flawed and needs a lot of work.

My reasons for not responding to Darva had nothing to do with the question she posed.

More was going on.


Darva was pointing out that the "before" pictures in that essay looked as though they were taken during a month-long strike by the course's greens crew.  The tees and grounds were shabby.  The course in the "after" pictures was very well maintained...not an apples-to-apples comparison...tree trimming wasn't the only thing that had happened at BR.

It was being regrassed and bunkers were having the sand excavated and replaced.

What's that got to do with the tree clearing program ?

Certainly your eye should have been able to discern the impact of the tree clearing program, especially when the photos were taken from virtually the same location.

Obviously you were fixated on cart paths and missed the impact of the tree clearing program.[/color]

Here's a hypothetical for you.  You, Pat Mucci, receive a flyer in the mail from a painting company.  The flyer has a "before" and "after" comparison that is supposed to show the improvement in your house's appearance if you get it painted by this contractor.  Sounds like something you've seen before.  

However, in the "before" picture, the house has weeds running wild, a car up on jacks in the driveway, and some shady looking characters sitting on the front steps drinking.  In the "after" photo, all these negatives are gone...it looks like the house is perfectly maintained.

Would you look at that flyer and say "wow, I always knew that a little new paint could work miracles!  Let's call the painter right now!"

Of course you wouldn't.  You'd say, "who does this guy think he's fooling?"[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin Reilly,

If, in your hypothetical, the flyer was from Pella, Anderson or some other window company and they showed a before and after of the windows, and you focused on the chimney, porch or lawn, then you missed the boat, and/or trees.

I thought this site was for the "discerning" architectural eye.

[Bill_McBride]

 

Just imagine, for a moment..........

What if all this intelligence, energy, persistence, drama  

were focused on say, the energy crisis, or peace in the Middle East?

Presto chango - all problems solved!

However, there will no resolution to THIS problem -  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Hey Bill...this thread is done...Darva's question was answered...on to more important things...are you heading over to Tenn for the Bears opener?

[Tom Zeni]

Just imagine, for a moment..........

What if all this intelligence, energy, persistence, drama  

were focused on say, the energy crisis, or peace in the Middle East?

Presto chango - all problems solved!

However, there will no resolution to THIS problem -  

Click Here for the Sound Byte:
http://www.wcdcpa.net/yulbrenner_bewritten.wav

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom and Patrick,

I love you like brothers.... give it a rest.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Hey Bill...this thread is done...Darva's question was answered...on to more important things...are you heading over to Tenn for the Bears opener?

No, Kevin, as much as I would love to see Bogey "Volunteer" Hendren and his orange clad boys in action against our beloved Bears, I have other plans.

However, Mrs. McBride and I will be in SF for the Big Game this year, Go Bears!  

I am hoping we can assemble the GCA Northern California multitude for a round during our visit, which starts the Monday before the game.

[Kyle Henderson]

However, Mrs. McBride and I will be in SF for the Big Game this year, Go Bears!  

I am hoping we can assemble the GCA Northern California multitude for a round during our visit, which starts the Monday before the game.

That sounds like a first-rate idea (Tilden Park to favor The Bears?)

Perhaps we should also arrange for a pregame boxing match on the 11th(?) tee at the MPCC Shore Course. No eye gouging. No blows above the belt. No "busy" fighting styles. Boulders may be used as weapons.

The first rule is, "You do not talk about Golf Club Atlas."

[Chris Perry]

What hole is the one in question, because I don't see anything resembling it on the aerial, unless it's pre-restoration?

[Kevin_Reilly]

You can see the hole in this picture from the California Coastal Records project site.  Click on the picture for a BIG version:

http://www.large.images.californiacoastline.org/images/2005/large/3/200508353.JPG

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()