And I suppose it's inconceivable that someone could agree with Tom and not be simply ass-kissing, or criticise Jack and not be simply bashing?
Whoops, forgot who I was asking....
Why everytime I ask for a simple example the person ignores my request and attacks me instead? Please...give one example in the last week where anyone praised the contributions of Nicklaus on Dismal or Sebonack.
What did he say or do that merited praise? Are we somehow obligated to make some sort of sham attempt to provide "balance" like the nitwit networks that feel they must have a talking head for each side of public debate? Must someone criticising his work first point out things they like before commenting on something they dislike?
Jeff Brauer defended Nicklaus plenty on the one thread, often erroneously so. I didn't see you criticising him for repeatedly making erroneous or misleading comments about Tom D.
You are the one who threw the first stone by stating, or at the very least, strongly implying that anyone who agreed with Tom D was just an ass kisser trying to look smart by association - why anyone would feel the need to dignify any one of your requests is simply beyond me, especially with your pathetic attempt to play the victim?
That's what I was referring to when I commented on your sad view.
The fact that Mike Young continues to support you for your oh-so-utterly courageous tilting at imaginary windmills saddens me even further.