News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #150 on: November 08, 2007, 05:31:10 PM »
Pat,

America 1861
North: Why can't a black man be free to dictate his own life in your states?
South: Because those are the rules, if you don't like it, leave.

Hyperbole, yes. I am not trying to say that clubs should not be allowed to have dress codes or rules of conduct. I am asking why they do, and what it says about the club and the nature of the game of golf as a whole that they do and are generally accepted as tradition.

When I ask why and get the response that "them's the rules" I begin to really question the true reason.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #151 on: November 08, 2007, 05:40:23 PM »
The problem you're having, Kyle, is that you're assuming everyone has your common sense and good judgment.

Dress codes didn't evolve from the occasional person who looked sharp in jeans and a t shirt or whatever, they evolved from the even rarer guy with his pants hanging halfway off his #$$, an offensive t shirt, whatever. That's what prompts folks to make rules.

Look at the photo of Tiger in the mock turtleneck - he looks better in that thing than I look in a tux. But when someone comes in wearing a mock turtleneck with plaid shorts, one black sock, one white sock and his hat turned backwards - well, the mock turtleneck gets beat down by association.

Dress codes are an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that people tend to think only of themselves, and not of others.

What makes one person comfortable does not always make another.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 05:42:15 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #152 on: November 08, 2007, 05:45:55 PM »
Quote
I am asking why they do, and what it says about the club and the nature of the game of golf as a whole that they do and are generally accepted as tradition.

Kyle, I am not sure I see why you continue think it has anything at all to do specifically with 'golf as a whole.'  It is something that applies to most of our interactions, be it politicians in Congress wearing suits or the Comcast cable guy wearing his Comcast outfit or judges in England with their wigs.  

Congrats on the job by the way. What did you wear to the interview? ;)
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #153 on: November 08, 2007, 05:46:10 PM »
In the spirit of full disclosure, and I have no problem admitting this. It has been brought to my attention that I have apparently drawn the ire of those around me for my dress and appearance and that my host felt some pressure because of it.

I am sorry to that host, and to any of the other people who have had me at their club. If you'd like, please PM me if I've ever embarrassed you.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 05:46:35 PM by Kyle Harris »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #154 on: November 08, 2007, 05:54:06 PM »
Kyle, you're welcome to wear whatever you'd like at my club.

Of course, it's a muni.

In a weird way, I appreciate dress codes more now that I'm a parent. I think there are soooooooo many things (sorry about the MWardspeak) that you think are crazy, until you're confronted with them as a parent. Then, you start to understand.

Sorry Mom & Dad! :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #155 on: November 08, 2007, 05:54:09 PM »
Pat,

America 1861
North: Why can't a black man be free to dictate his own life in your states?
South: Because those are the rules, if you don't like it, leave.

Hyperbole, yes. I am not trying to say that clubs should not be allowed to have dress codes or rules of conduct. I am asking why they do, and what it says about the club and the nature of the game of golf as a whole that they do and are generally accepted as tradition.

When I ask why and get the response that "them's the rules" I begin to really question the true reason.

Kyle,

I don't think your analogy really fits here.  Even though it may be Politically Uncorrect, slavery did have a huge economic benefit to it, and it was profitable. Enforcing a dress code if anything seems to be working against a club financially in the form of lost customers.

I understand why you ask why, or at least I think I do.  I'm with you on this one, I think many of the responses as to the why is mostly hooey, but it doesn't change the fact that the code is the code.  I think you know full well what the whys are.  I think what you are really asking is "why would someone espouse these beliefs when they seem so archaic?"

As an analogy, I took a sociallogy course in college and the best they could tell from research and analysis is that societys opionions and beliefs change mostly due to attrition of people espousing one belief set, and thier offspring espousing a different belief set.

But until then, you just have to live with the fact that it almost always comes down to "because I said so, thats why"
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 05:56:25 PM by Kalen Braley »

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #156 on: November 08, 2007, 05:59:14 PM »
Kyle,

By reading your posts, I am guessing you actually were serious when apologizing to me.

However, I think that if a dress code is set it should be followed, whether you like it or not.  I think it's BS that you would let a guy whom you played with at a local muni a few times wear jeans and a t-shirt at your club.  Theres no way.  And would the club really allow it anyways?

The last thing I am ever going to do go to a golf course with improper attire, as set by the course's dress code.  I've learned before that there are dress codes for a reason.  Rules are meant to be followed.  I may like them or I may not, but my opinion on the rules does not determine whether I follow them or not.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #157 on: November 08, 2007, 06:04:32 PM »
Yeah, Jordan I was serious.

But use your own values and mind to determine which rules you should follow and which you should fight.

I can sense your passion for the game with every post, so you'll naturally see the dress codes as no big deal. With age and experience comes different perspective and enjoyment of things, perhaps I have outgrown or outlived this game and its institutions.

Maybe it's time to go back to my music.

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #158 on: November 08, 2007, 06:18:45 PM »
With age and experience comes different perspective and enjoyment of things, perhaps I have outgrown or outlived this game and its institutions.


Kyle,
As far as I can see, you're 24.
When I was 24, I travelled around the world making music. By the time I was 27 I thought of myself as a world weary, seen this done that, kinda guy. It wasn't until I was closer to 40 than 30 that I realised how little I had seen, and how little I knew.
I'd like to suggest, in the nicest possible way, that unless I'm mistaken, you're a young man. It may be a little early to be outliving or outgrowing the game of golf...

Just a thought.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #159 on: November 08, 2007, 06:25:09 PM »
Lloyd,

I just reread the letter to the fans that Peter Gabriel wrote upon leaving Genesis in 1975.

"The vehicle we had built as a co-op to serve our songwriting became our master and had cooped us up inside the success we had wanted. It affected the attitudes and the spirit of the whole band. the music had not dried up and I still respect the other musicians, but our roles had set in hard. To get an idea through "Genesis the Big" meant shifting a lot more concrete than before. For any band, transferring the heart from idealistic enthusiasm to professionalism is a difficult operation. I believe the use of sound and visual images can be developed to do much more than we have done. But on a large scale it needs one clear and coherent direction, which our pseudo-democratic committee system could not provide. As an artist, I need to absorb a wide variety of experiences. It is difficult to respond to intuition and impulse within the long-term planning that the band needed. I felt I should look at/learn about/develop myself, my creative bits and pieces and pick up on a lot of work going on outside music. Even the hidden delights of vegetable growing and community living are beginning to reveal their secrets. I could not expect the band to tie in their schedules with my bondage to cabbages. The increase in money and power, if I had stayed, would have anchored me to the spotlights. It was important to me to give space to my family, which I wanted to hold together, and to liberate the daddy in me. Although I have seen and learnt a great deal in the last seven years, I found I had begun to look at things as the famous Gabriel, despite hiding my occupation whenever possible, hitching lifts, etc. I had begun to think in business terms; very useful for an often bitten once shy musician, but treating records and audiences as money was taking me away from them. When performing, there were less shivers up and down the spine. I believe the world has soon to go through a difficult period of changes. I'm excited by some of the areas coming through to the surface which seem to have been hidden away in people's minds. I want to explore and be prepared to be open and flexible enough to respond, not tied in to the old hierarchy. Much of my psyche's ambitions as "Gabriel archetypal rock star" have been fulfilled - a lot of the ego-gratification and the need to attract young ladies, perhaps the result of frequent rejection as "Gabriel acne-struck public school boy". However, I can still get off playing the star game once in a while. My future within music, if it exists, will be in as many situations as possible. It's good to see a growing number of artists breaking down the pigeonholes. This is the difference between the profitable, compartmentalized, battery chicken and the free-range. Why did the chicken cross the road anyway? There is no animosity between myself and the band or management. The decision had been made some time ago and we have talked about our new direction. The reason why my leaving was not announced earlier was because I had been asked to delay until they had found a replacement to plug up the hole. It is not impossible that some of them might work with me on other projects. The following guesswork has little in common with truth: Gabriel left Genesis. 1) To work in theatre. 2) To make more money as a solo artist. 3) To do a "Bowie". 4) To do a "Ferry". 5) To do a "Furry Boa round my neck and hang myself with it". 6) To go see an institution. 7) To go senile in the sticks. I do not express myself adequately in interviews and I felt I owed it to the people who have put a lot of love and energy supporting the band to give an accurate picture of my reasons."

I think, in some form, this is along the lines of what I'm feeling. I am by nature a creator, a non-conformist and a dreamer. Sometimes I need to gain new perspectives to gain new motivations - and the institutions of the game do not allow that by nature of their social inertia.

It is nigh on impossible for me to experience the Merions or Pine Valleys of the world in a different context than those imposed upon me by their rules.

That is not to say the rules are bad or that they do not have purpose, but at the same time, they do stifle those who seek to view things a bit differently and harmlessly.

Perhaps this is why I prefer being on golf courses at night.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 06:34:47 PM by Kyle Harris »

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #160 on: November 08, 2007, 06:26:20 PM »
This a pretty interesting thread and it brings out a lot of strong feelings.  In some ways it illustrates the clash of cultures that happens in pretty much every generation.  It seems that today every sub-culture has its own dress.
I am a skier.  It is very easy to tell off mountain who skis and who snowboards.   The dress is a dead give away.
Go to any college town and it is pretty easy to see who are the "townies" and who students.  In fact my daughter teaches at Carleton College in Northfield MN.  It coexists with St. Olaf College.  Each college has its own dress and according to my daughter the two can be distinguished in town.
High schools have a bunch of subcultures, each with its own dress.
these "uniforms" are but an extension of how each group sees itself and wants to distinguish itself.  I guess people like me need to lighten up a bit.  But can't we at least remove our hats inside a building?  :)
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #161 on: November 08, 2007, 06:35:01 PM »
I try to evaluate people based on their actions, not their clothes.

Sean,

Turning up for a game of golf at a golf club inappropriately attired IS an action. It's negligence, it's either intentional 'pushing of the envelope' or it's laziness in not having done one's research.
Likewise, turning up dressed in a manner that is never going to cause offence or trouble IS an action, it is an act of courtesy. Turning up prepared with a suit and tie at certain British clubs is sensible, you might not need it, but you might be asked for lunch and the last thing you want is to have to borrow one of the jackets or ties kept for the unprepared.

And to all concerned. Let me make it clear, I don't particularly enjoy putting on a suit to eat, but it just doesn't bother me that much..how inconvenienced am I by it? Not much. Anyone who travels knows you have to pack for the unexpected. How hard is it to pack a suit?
I also believe that there are clothes out there which will satisfy all clubs dress codes which are not going to make you look like 'a square' or something from the new Ralph Lauren commercial. I wear hiking trousers, I actually like Marks and Spencer's Italian wool sweaters.. look really hard and there are even nice (ish) golf shoes. I'm absolutely compfortable in my golf wear, just at Pat Mucci is in his. Would we both be reconisabe as golfers without our clubs? Maybe not. We're both OK with that, I think.

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #162 on: November 08, 2007, 06:36:41 PM »

It is nigh on impossible for me to experience the Merions or Pine Valleys of the world in a different context than those imposed upon me by their rules.

That is not to say the rules are bad or that they do not have purpose, but at the same time, they do stifle those who seek to view things a bit differently and harmlessly.


Kyle, exactly how would you like to experience Merion or Pine Valley?

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #163 on: November 08, 2007, 06:40:38 PM »

It is nigh on impossible for me to experience the Merions or Pine Valleys of the world in a different context than those imposed upon me by their rules.

That is not to say the rules are bad or that they do not have purpose, but at the same time, they do stifle those who seek to view things a bit differently and harmlessly.


Kyle, exactly how would you like to experience Merion or Pine Valley?

On a fit of whimsy. I'd like to feel that I could pop over there (as a member) and play golf without having to spend time in a locker room getting ready or 45 minutes at home dressing to the nines to fit the part.

I'd like to be able to look like a golfer by playing golf - not dressing in a certain way.

Jeff Spittel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #164 on: November 08, 2007, 06:51:14 PM »
I'm sure I speak solely for myself, but I would happily play dressed as Little Bo Peep or have my caddy wheel me around on a gurney like Hannibal Lector (complete with mask and straight jacket) for the opportunity to have the Merions or Pine Valleys of the world impose their rules upon me.

I see where you're coming from Kyle, but as a wise man once told me, "somtimes life's a shit sandwich and you just have to take a bite". I would prefer to show up to work dressed like I was headed to a Phish concert, but it's not in the cards.  

Fare and be well now, let your life proceed by its own design.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #165 on: November 08, 2007, 06:52:25 PM »
For the vast majority of people, golf is not work.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #166 on: November 08, 2007, 06:53:50 PM »

It is nigh on impossible for me to experience the Merions or Pine Valleys of the world in a different context than those imposed upon me by their rules.

That is not to say the rules are bad or that they do not have purpose, but at the same time, they do stifle those who seek to view things a bit differently and harmlessly.


Kyle, exactly how would you like to experience Merion or Pine Valley?

On a fit of whimsy. I'd like to feel that I could pop over there (as a member) and play golf without having to spend time in a locker room getting ready or 45 minutes at home dressing to the nines to fit the part.

I'd like to be able to look like a golfer by playing golf - not dressing in a certain way.

Kyle, private clubs have their own rules that are made by the members of the club.  I saw Bill Coore play in jeans at Sand Hills yet for years I played in slacks at Baltusrol until this year.  They changed the rules.  If you are going to go to Merion it is simple you follow their rules whether it is in dress or taking a caddy or using cell phones or tipping.  The members have decided what behavior and dress are appropriate for their club.  You can dress as you want and they can also ask you to either change or leave.  It is simply a matter of courtesy to know what those rules are and follow them without judging them.  
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

wsmorrison

Re:Not OT
« Reply #167 on: November 08, 2007, 06:57:30 PM »
Kyle,

Did you get kicked off a golf course dressed in your Dr. McCoy Star Trek uniform stopping off for a round before a convention?  I get it, they wouldn't let you play in a mock turtleneck and that is why you are so miffed.

Hey, at least we don't have to dress up like the 70s anymore.  Though Mike Malone still does.  It isn't because he is a cheap Quaker (although he is ;)).  He just likes Sansabelt slacks    ;D
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 07:00:56 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #168 on: November 08, 2007, 06:58:20 PM »
Tommy, I realize that.. hence my qualifier (as a member).

I understand that having no stake in the game (meaning, I didn't pay to be member) means I don't have any right to dictate terms.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #169 on: November 08, 2007, 07:00:36 PM »
Kyle,

Did you get kicked off a golf course dressed in your Dr. McCoy Star Trek uniform stopping off for a round before a convention?  I get it, they wouldn't let you play in a mock turtleneck and that is why you are so miffed.

Hey, at least we don't have to dress up like the 70s anymore.  Though Mike Malone still does.  It isn't because he is a cheap Quaker.  He just likes Sansabelt slacks   ;D

I look terrible in mock turtlenecks, and hate anything tight against my neck in general. Actually, I explained my reasoning on the top of Page 2 of this thread.

Scout uniforms have collars... come to think of it. I'd have to play in the pants though, as the shorts are awful short and tight. In fact, my Order of the Arrow Vigil name is the Lenni Lenape word for "Round ball Friend" which is a double entendre for my proclivity to golf, and an unfortunate scout uniform related incident.

I should also note that my Star Trek uniform is that of a Captain from The Next Generation era.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 07:05:20 PM by Kyle Harris »

wsmorrison

Re:Not OT
« Reply #170 on: November 08, 2007, 07:07:56 PM »
"I look terrible in mock turtlenecks. Actually, I explained my reasoning on the top of Page 2 of this thread."

I'm trying my best to think what you wouldn't look terrible in.  I'm having trouble with that one, Kyle  ;)

If you think I'm going to go back and read any of this thread and your feeble protests...you are Malonian in your craziness.  I'm just killing time busting your balls while printing out Brooklyn Eagle articles on Merion.  I'll get to Shinnecock sometime after that...but there's 801 articles!  

"I should also note that my Star Trek uniform is that of a Captain from The Next Generation era."

What was her name again?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 07:09:06 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #171 on: November 08, 2007, 07:09:29 PM »
"I look terrible in mock turtlenecks. Actually, I explained my reasoning on the top of Page 2 of this thread."

I'm trying my best to think what you wouldn't look terrible in.  I'm having trouble with that one, Kyle  ;)

If you think I'm going to go back and read any of this thread and your feeble protests...you are Malonian in your craziness.  I'm just killing time busting your balls while printing out Brooklyn Eagle articles on Merion.  I'll get to Shinnecock sometime after that...but there's 801 articles!  

I'd like to start perusing that too, Willie Park did a lot of his barnstorming around New York during his first trip to the US.

But remember, cognitive dissonance can be a wonderful thing.

You're also confusing Star Trek: TNG with Star Trek: Voyager.... cretin.  ;)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 07:10:09 PM by Kyle Harris »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Not OT
« Reply #172 on: November 08, 2007, 07:10:10 PM »
Kyle,

That was really a dumb response, one that ignores the rule of law and societal values.

Examining an 1800 issue in the context of 2000 values is flawed to the core.  

You would judge a film by basing the analysis on but a single frame.

One should view issues by also including the historical perspective.

As to those who would judge people based on their actions rather than how they dress, how they dress is a willful act, and as such, they should be judged by that act in the context of the environment they've entered.  

Dressing unconventionally or like a slop is disrespectful to your host, his/her fellow members and guests, the club and the staff.  

It's a selfish, self absorbed act that merits being banned from the property.
[size=4x]
If people don't have the courtesy to conduct themselves properly, and that includes conformance to dress codes, they're not worthy of an invite.
[/size]  

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #173 on: November 08, 2007, 07:13:52 PM »
Kyle,

That was really a dumb response, one that ignores the rule of law and societal values.

Examining an 1800 issue in the context of 2000 values is flawed to the core.  

You would judge a film by basing the analysis on but a single frame.

One should view issues by also including the historical perspective.

As to those who would judge people based on their actions rather than how they dress, how they dress is a willful act, and as such, they should be judged by that act in the context of the environment they've entered.  

Dressing unconventionally or like a slop is disrespectful to your host, his/her fellow members and guests, the club and the staff.  

It's a selfish, self absorbed act that merits being banned from the property.
[size=4x]
If people don't have the courtesy to conduct themselves properly, and that includes conformance to dress codes, they're not worthy of an invite.
[/size]  

Pat, I simply asked why the dress codes are as they are, and what is so disrespectful about them. It was not so much a hard comparison of slavery and dress codes, but of the general attitude about what we assume is tradition - it's circular logic, there at one point had to be a reason and purpose and it couldn't have "always been that way."

I admitted it was hyperbole, but to me, the idea that someone can assume I am disrespectful to them based on how I look is absurd.

You're right though, they aren't worth of an invite.

I must ask you, based upon our one dinner together and your knowledge of my personality, would I be unworthy of an invite?

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #174 on: November 08, 2007, 07:19:03 PM »
Kyle,

Hard to say if this "experiment" has ever been verified, but its my take that this is not too far off from why things are as they are so to speak:

-----------------------------------------------------

The "Monkey experiment" was an experiment performed in which it was shown how social inertia causes behaviour which develops in response to a negative stimulus to persist in a population of monkeys, even after the stimulus is removed.

Researchers placed five monkeys into a cage, which, at its centre, had a ladder leading up to a bunch of bananas. Soon enough, one of the monkeys attempted to scale the ladder to grab a banana. The researchers responded by spraying cold water over all of the monkeys. Later, when another monkey attempted to climb the ladder, the researchers again sprayed all of the monkeys with cold water.

The monkeys quickly grasped the causal relationship and meted out physical punishment to any monkey which attempted to climb the ladder.

From this point onwards, the researchers did not spray any more water on any of the monkeys, and they removed one of the existing monkeys, introducing a new monkey into the cage. The new monkey, not yet aware of the apparent connection between climbing the ladder and being drenched in cold water, soon proceeded to start climbing the ladder. The other monkeys swiftly punished this transgression and pinned the new monkey down with force. Needless to say, the new monkey quickly learned to avoid the ladder.

Then, the researchers removed another monkey from the original group from the cage and introduced another new monkey. Since the new monkey was unaware of the perils of climbing the stairway to the bananas, it soon attempted to do so. This monkey too was severely dealt with, and the monkey who was introduced prior to new monkey enthusiastically took part in the punishment of the newcomer.

The researchers replaced the remaining three monkeys from the original group in the same way, each time observing the same behaviour.

Thus, even though the original "population" of monkeys was completely replaced and even though the cause for their behaviour was never experienced by any of the "second generation" monkeys, the behaviour introduced by the first generation persisted.

The researchers suggested that social inertia causes similar, if more complex phenomena in human beings.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 07:19:51 PM by Kalen Braley »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back