[Roger Wolfe]

I apologize to everyone for jumping on Mr. Tigerman.  I did not mean for it to cause such a debate.

Perhaps a lot of us who work at or belong to lower tier clubs just feel a little left out by some of
the posts on this site.  Augusta and National Golf Links receive so many architectural posts that
they are referred to using acronyms.  AGNC and NGLA are two places I am pretty sure I will never
set foot on (unless I "whore myself out") so any discussion regarding those two clubs or basically
any private, exclusive venue is simply not for me.

I love this site and am very grateful to Ran for letting me participate but my knowledge of golf
architecture, growing every day, is limited to the architecture I've seen.  I may have been mistaken
but I figured my "DG worth" could be contributed to my experience as a "restoration GM," the fact
I've played over 1,000 courses all over the country, and that I am a golf fanatic.

I think Ran's recent post was an excellent reminder of why this site exists.  I am going to take his
advice and try to keep my comments GCA related.  I recently posted about Executive Golfer
magazine simply because I wanted to know more about those clubs and poke a little fun at the
silly people who produce it.  This is obviously not the right venue for something like that.

However... if anyone needs a fourth at ANGC or NGLA... give me a holler! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I am confused that someone feels it isn't a waste of time to lecture the Tree House about access issues but it is a waste of time to confront the "guilty" parties.  

Sean,

I know you're confused, I pointed that out to you.

Didn't you read Jeff's posts ?
He stated that he was besieged by an inordinate number of requests, requests made in poor taste.
Why is it his obligation or TEPaul's or my obligation to spend our time lecturing the offenders who didn't see the nature and scope of their transgression in the first place ?  What benefits will inure to any of us as a result of spending our time to lecture the miscreants ?

You don't get it.
What's even more incredible is that after I cited the examples and problems, you still don't get it.
That's why you NEED to be lectured.
Isn't that what you advised Jeff and I do to ?  To lecture those that don't get it.

I am also confused as to how rampant this behaviour is.  

How can you be confused ?
Jeff layed it out in perfect english/terms.
And, I supported Jeff's contention from TEPaul's and my personal experiences.
Talk about obtuse.

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling we are talking about a handful or two of people when I don't know how many hundreds have rolled through the Tree House.  

You are WRONG.
TEPaul, myself and others have had numerous discussions on the problem.
I even had one person dictate what date and time he wanted to play, with NO regard to what my schedule may have been.

It may be a problem for a very small group on here, but where I come from, when you have a problem with someone you talk to that someone.

Again, you're wrong.
It's not a small group.
And, neither TEPaul, Jeff or myself are going to waste our time talking to someone who already knows better.

Afterall, what does  Joe Blow's behaviour have to do with me and hundreds of other people here?

Citing your own advice, when you see a post that's seeking access, directly or indirectly, you could raise your objections and lecture the offending poster off site.  

Being lectured to because of someone eles's behaviour is about as off topic as it gets besides being rather annoying.  

That's not why you're being lectured.
You're being lectured because you defended and/or minimalized the problem and suggested that like Dr Phil, we spend time trying to console and educate the offenders.

It is especially irksome when you (yet again and to form) add pointlless, misguided insults, compounding the problem because they are directed at the wrong person unless you for some (mistaken I might add) reason believe I have asked any access favours (or any other sort for that matter) of you.  

Nonsense,
You defended and minimalized the behavior and advised us to take time out of our day to counsel the offenders.

You need to be lectured if you're that stupid.

[Sean_A]

Pat

I am confused that someone feels it isn't a waste of time to lecture the Tree House about access issues but it is a waste of time to confront the "guilty" parties.  

Sean,

I know you're confused, I pointed that out to you.

Didn't you read Jeff's posts ?
He stated that he was besieged by an inordinate number of requests, requests made in poor taste.
Why is it his obligation or TEPaul's or my obligation to spend our time lecturing the offenders who didn't see the nature and scope of their transgression in the first place ?  What benefits will inure to any of us as a result of spending our time to lecture the miscreants ?

You don't get it.
What's even more incredible is that after I cited the examples and problems, you still don't get it.
That's why you NEED to be lectured.
Isn't that what you advised Jeff and I do to ?  To lecture those that don't get it.

I am also confused as to how rampant this behaviour is.  

How can you be confused ?
Jeff layed it out in perfect english/terms.
And, I supported Jeff's contention from TEPaul's and my personal experiences.
Talk about obtuse.

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling we are talking about a handful or two of people when I don't know how many hundreds have rolled through the Tree House.  

You are WRONG.
TEPaul, myself and others have had numerous discussions on the problem.
I even had one person dictate what date and time he wanted to play, with NO regard to what my schedule may have been.

It may be a problem for a very small group on here, but where I come from, when you have a problem with someone you talk to that someone.

Again, you're wrong.
It's not a small group.
And, neither TEPaul, Jeff or myself are going to waste our time talking to someone who already knows better.

Afterall, what does  Joe Blow's behaviour have to do with me and hundreds of other people here?

Citing your own advice, when you see a post that's seeking access, directly or indirectly, you could raise your objections and lecture the offending poster off site.  

Being lectured to because of someone eles's behaviour is about as off topic as it gets besides being rather annoying.  

That's not why you're being lectured.
You're being lectured because you defended and/or minimalized the problem and suggested that like Dr Phil, we spend time trying to console and educate the offenders.

It is especially irksome when you (yet again and to form) add pointlless, misguided insults, compounding the problem because they are directed at the wrong person unless you for some (mistaken I might add) reason believe I have asked any access favours (or any other sort for that matter) of you.  

Nonsense,
You defended and minimalized the behavior and advised us to take time out of our day to counsel the offenders.

You need to be lectured if you're that stupid.

Pat

I know you went to Notre Dame, but I am sure they don't teach classes in obtuseness so I am guessing it comes naturally.  Because you and a few others have issues with access seekers in no way implies that it is a serious or rampant problem on the board.  Without the offending behaviour detailed and with a relatively small number of people complaining about this issue it is prudent for me to draw the conclusion that this isn't much of a problem for the board even if it is for some individuals.  Your time can't be terribly valuable if you want to whine about your personal problems to me; someone who has nothing to do with your problem, isn't inclined to act as a policeman on the board nor is terribly sympathetic about your plight when it is quite clear by your rude and obnoxious behaviour that you have the wherewithal to deal with unwanted solicitations.  

Ciao  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I know you went to Notre Dame,

That's true.
I especially enjoyed the three years I spent as a Junior.

but I am sure they don't teach classes in obtuseness so I am guessing it comes naturally.  
Because you and a few others have issues with access seekers in no way implies that it is a serious or rampant problem on the board.  

Sean, no one is seeking access to Dykers Beach.
The access issue centers on clubs of note.
Jeff Fortson spend inordinate quantities of ink describing the almost constant bombardment for access and you want to deny or minimilize his personal experiences and claims.
Then, I chime in about some of the inordinate requests that TEPaul, myself and others have gotten and you want to deny those as well.

Face it, you're flat out wrong on this issue.
You haven't an iota of personal experience or facts to counter the claims of Jeff, TEPaul, myself and others.

That's just plain stupidity and/or stubborness on your part.

It's a problem, it's a systemic problem no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand.

Without the offending behaviour detailed and with a relatively small number of people complaining about this issue it is prudent for me to draw the conclusion that this isn't much of a problem for the board even if it is for some individuals.  

How do you know it's a "relatively small" number of people complaining ?
Are you privy to all the IM's, emails and phone calls on this subject ?


Your time can't be terribly valuable if you want to whine about your personal problems to me; someone who has nothing to do with your problem, isn't inclined to act as a policeman on the board nor is terribly sympathetic about your plight when it is quite clear by your rude and obnoxious behaviour that you have the wherewithal to deal with unwanted solicitations.  

I tried to reason with you, but, you're in denial even though you have NO experience in this area.

Would you cite where I wanted to whine about personal problems to you, or is that just another one of your fabrications attempting to justify your untenable position ?

Why would I want to waste a second of my time lecturing AW's ?
I've got far better things to do, like point out the errors of your ways.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,
 
There is a HUGE difference between you and a guy like Jeff F. You both dislike acess whores, both miss some friends who were classic GCA posters and both miss the GOLDEN DAYS when you were discoveng GCA on the internet.

However, YOU still try to make the site better. YOU still create interesting discussion topics. YOU share your insights into the incredible number of great courses that you have played. YOU decided to have another GCA have outing this fall and have created a first class agenda. YOU are what I call a builder.

Jeff, on the other hand, does NONE of this. He makes absolutely ZERO positive contribution for years, then makes a post that rips the site. He then gets emboldened by a few PM's, so he continues his rant.

I have found in life there are two kind of people: 1) Builders (risk takers, inventors, and entrepeneurs, etc.) who move the world forward and 2) Everyone else...


Within the "everyone else" category, is a small minority of whiners, complainers and naysayers. They have been there forever. They are part of HISTORY.  I know them. I met them when I was president of my fraternity, when I was on my local school board, when I became  board member of my golf club and helped lead a restoration effort. They are the Jeff Forstens of the world. I knew it when I read his post. They have neither the courage nor the capacity to build, so they try to knock down. They have plenty of excuses why they don't lead....but the truth is they are simply far more comfortable when they are knocking something. And they are at their back-stabbing worst when someone like Pat Mucci encourages them. You see Pat, they are gutless, often bullies. So they need the Pat Mucci's and Donnie Beck's of this website, people who actually contribute to CGA.com (but would NEVER say all the harmful things Jeff said) to pump them up. I usually ignore these losers and I can't quite put my finger on why this one irks me so...Oddly, it might have been Jeff's inclusion of a knock of Melvin, which told me Jeff's intent was to harm.

[Doug Siebert]

Sean,

With respect, I think Patrick is correct here (and I hate to be agreeing with anyone whose posts hurt my eyes as much as his )  Those of who aren't members of well known "top 100" courses (or who are but manage to keep it quiet to GCA at large) aren't going to see access requests.  Someone can PM me asking if I can help him get on PV and I'll point him to the website of a local public course called Pleasant Valley.  If replies back telling me he meant Pine Valley, I'll start to laugh as I tell him I'll get back to him after *I* get to play there

Is it possible that Jeff, Patrick and others are making a big deal out of 2 or 3 random requests they each receive a year?  Sure, anything's possible, maybe it is all a grand conspiracy amongst them to quash those last 2 or 3 people who have bad manners.  But I suspect it is much more likely that it is a real problem, given that there are occasionally threads where people are practically asking for help accessing a particular course or courses in a particular area.  If someone is brazen enough to do that in front of 1499 others, I'm sure they would have no problem in PMing anyone they see mentioning having frequently played say NGLA or Oakmont or whatever.

Its like the people who send out the spam emails we all love sifting through.  It costs them nothing to send, and even a miniscule success rate makes it worth their while.  Sometimes spam frustrates me enough that I wish I was an antisocial bastard.  I have been on the Internet since before it allowed commercial traffic, if I didn't care about the negative consequences of my actions I could been one of the spam pioneers, and probably be a member at Sand Hills and Sebonack getting hassled for access on GCA   Likewise, as a long-time member of GCA who hasn't ever got access to a course via GCA, if I'd been bugging people all this time I'd probably have a lot of people disliking me but I'd have some more top 100 courses under my belt 

[Rob Rigg]

If AW is such an issue then maybe people should be called out publicly on the site if they are clearly or repeatedly pestering those members of "the upper crust" who are sick of it?

Has there even been a thread posted on GCA about proper etiquette in regards to the AW issue?

Maybe some of the guys who are constantly bothered - some of them have already been mentioned on this thread - can "lay down the law" on etiquette - then if they are bothered by a site "rookie" they can point them to the thread. That is their chance to learn. It is possible that some are making a "rookie" mistake and just need some guidance.

If they don't get it - then let the world know.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

With respect, I think Patrick is correct here (and I hate to be agreeing with anyone whose posts hurt my eyes as much as his )  Those of who aren't members of well known "top 100" courses (or who are but manage to keep it quiet to GCA at large) aren't going to see access requests.  Someone can PM me asking if I can help him get on PV and I'll point him to the website of a local public course called Pleasant Valley.  If replies back telling me he meant Pine Valley, I'll start to laugh as I tell him I'll get back to him after *I* get to play there

Is it possible that Jeff, Patrick and others are making a big deal out of 2 or 3 random requests they each receive a year?  Sure, anything's possible, maybe it is all a grand conspiracy amongst them to quash those last 2 or 3 people who have bad manners.  But I suspect it is much more likely that it is a real problem, given that there are occasionally threads where people are practically asking for help accessing a particular course or courses in a particular area.  If someone is brazen enough to do that in front of 1499 others, I'm sure they would have no problem in PMing anyone they see mentioning having frequently played say NGLA or Oakmont or whatever.

Its like the people who send out the spam emails we all love sifting through.  It costs them nothing to send, and even a miniscule success rate makes it worth their while.  Sometimes spam frustrates me enough that I wish I was an antisocial bastard.  I have been on the Internet since before it allowed commercial traffic, if I didn't care about the negative consequences of my actions I could been one of the spam pioneers, and probably be a member at Sand Hills and Sebonack getting hassled for access on GCA  Likewise, as a long-time member of GCA who hasn't ever got access to a course via GCA, if I'd been bugging people all this time I'd probably have a lot of people disliking me but I'd have some more top 100 courses under my belt  

Doug

I have said before it doesn't really matter to me if folks agree or not because its my opinion and absent nearly all the evidence my opinion is the best I can offer, but I will try to explain again.  

I can accept that behind closed doors all sorts of stuff goes on even access requests.  I do however, especially without evidence presented, find it hard to believe that these situations on a whole are any sort of serious problem for THE BOARD.  The problem is between the access seekers and those being asked - not with me or hundreds of other people on the board.  Given that this is undeniably true, why do folks go on the board to whinge when their comments should be directed at the (apparently hundreds of guilty parties if Pat's accusations are accurate) guilty parties?  In other words, Pat's, Jeff's of whoever's problem doesn't become my problem because we are members of the same board.  As I have no personal connection with these chaps, I don't want to hear their personal problems and then be insulted on top when in fact, I have done nothing wrong unless disagreeing with Pat is now considered wrong.  I know Pat thinks so, but until he can learn to control himself and or present the eviidence, I don't care about his opinion.  It works out well, because unlike the hundreds of access seekers hounding Pat endlessly, I don't need any favours from Pat.

Ciao

[Roger Wolfe]

Well said Sean.

[Tim Martin]

Pat,
 
There is a HUGE difference between you and a guy like Jeff F. You both dislike acess whores, both miss some friends who were classic GCA posters and both miss the GOLDEN DAYS when you were discoveng GCA on the internet.

However, YOU still try to make the site better. YOU still create interesting discussion topics. YOU share your insights into the incredible number of great courses that you have played. YOU decided to have another GCA have outing this fall and have created a first class agenda. YOU are what I call a builder.

Jeff, on the other hand, does NONE of this. He makes absolutely ZERO positive contribution for years, then makes a post that rips the site. He then gets emboldened by a few PM's, so he continues his rant.

I have found in life there are two kind of people: 1) Builders (risk takers, inventors, and entrepeneurs, etc.) who move the world forward and 2) Everyone else...


Within the "everyone else" category, is a small minority of whiners, complainers and naysayers. They have been there forever. They are part of HISTORY.  I know them. I met them when I was president of my fraternity, when I was on my local school board, when I became  board member of my golf club and helped lead a restoration effort. They are the Jeff Forstens of the world. I knew it when I read his post. They have neither the courage nor the capacity to build, so they try to knock down. They have plenty of excuses why they don't lead....but the truth is they are simply far more comfortable when they are knocking something. And they are at their back-stabbing worst when someone like Pat Mucci encourages them. You see Pat, they are gutless, often bullies. So they need the Pat Mucci's and Donnie Beck's of this website, people who actually contribute to CGA.com (but would NEVER say all the harmful things Jeff said) to pump them up. I usually ignore these losers and I can't quite put my finger on why this one irks me so...Oddly, it might have been Jeff's inclusion of a knock of Melvin, which told me Jeff's intent was to harm.

Bill-I registered as a poster in January after accessing the site for about 5 years. I am extremely grateful to Ran for the opportunity. The discussion group has been invaluable and enlightening. That said I have read Jeff`s initial post a number of times and although it was not a glowing assessment of the current DG it certainly doesn`t contain the vitriol of your post or your mean spirited comparison of him and Mr. Mucci. If the words gutless,bully and loser are not meant to harm then maybe I don`t understand your intent. Mr. Forsten touched on three sources of angst- 1)Access Whoring 2)Pissing Contests like the Merion Threads and 3) A general dissatisfaction with the OT content of the site. It seems that there is a sizable portion of the membership of GCA that feel these issues are in fact a problem. Current threads by Ran and numerous posts by the likes of Pat Mucci confirm the same. No one likes to have things that they are a fan of picked apart but that`s what makes the world go round. Mr. Forsten even showed some contrition as to some of his previous posts that were confrontational and ill conceived(I`m paraphrasing). It`s obvious from your post that you consider yourself a "builder". I suggest you have a slice of humble pie and let "everyone else" have their say. If you read it carefully he also had
some positive things to say. Finally your rant was as nasty as anything I have read on the Merion threads. If I put your post up against Jeff`s initial post it would be yours that would drive me away from CGA a lot faster.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tim

I would for your sake re read Jeff's original post. There is more to it than you think, the warm heat of hate has reached me in the UK

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have said before it doesn't really matter to me if folks agree or not because its my opinion and absent nearly all the evidence my opinion is the best I can offer, but I will try to explain again.  

When your head is stuck in the sand you can't see the evidence.
Jeff presented it, I presented it and TEPaul and others have presented it.
But, strangely,lyou remain in denial.


I can accept that behind closed doors all sorts of stuff goes on even access requests.  I do however, especially without evidence presented, find it hard to believe that these situations on a whole are any sort of serious problem for THE BOARD.  The problem is between the access seekers and those being asked - not with me or hundreds of other people on the board.  

That's why you don't get it.
It's not a collective incident/problem directed at the BOARD, it's a series of incidents directed at individual participants on the BOARD.

Should Jeff, TE, myself and others "OUT" someone every time access is requested ?
I don't think any of us are interested in that practice.
Better to let it go and not bring each incident public.
But, it's also good to serve notice to lurkers and participants alike, especially new participants.

If you were a member of PV, Sunningdale or Swinley Forest I think you'd be singing a different tune.[/b]

Given that is is undeniably the true, why do folks go on the board to whinge when their comments should be directed at the (apparently hundreds of guilty parties if Pat's accusations are accurate) guilty parties?  

For the same reason that a "PUBLIC NOTICE" is posted.
OR, in terms you might understand, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
OR, better to nip it in the bud .....

In other words, Pat's, Jeff's of whoever's problem doesn't become my problem because we are members of the same board.  As I have no personal connection with these chaps, I don't want to hear their personal problems and then be insulted on top when in fact, I have done nothing wrong unless disagreeing with Pat is now considered wrong.  I know Pat thinks so, but until he can learn to control himself and or present the eviidence, I don't care about his opinion.  It works out well, because unlike the hundreds of access seekers hounding Pat endlessly, I don't need any favours from Pat.

The ONLY reason it's not your problem is that you don't belong to or can arrange guest privileges at a course where access is sought.

Reread the part about an ounce of prevention.

I didn't take you to task and insult you because you disagreed with me in principle, but, because you ignored and dismissed the facts and experiences presented by Jeff, myself, TE and others.

Here we have unrelated parties from different sections of the country informing the board that its a problem and you're denying that it's a problem and essentially calling us liars.

And for that, you deserve to be taken to task and insulted.

I've hosted dozens upon dozens of participants at clubs, so it's not as if I don't extend the courtesy.
When Jeff brought the issue to everyone's attention, I merely confirmed that it's a problem that I and others had experienced and that I'd prefer NOT to continue to experience it.

If you want to be so stupid as to support the AW activity, go ahead and do so.

What you also fail to realize is that it's just not participants who engage in this activity, but lurkers as well
Hence, like a public notice, Jeff's plea to cease and desist has merit.

While you've declined any favors from me, I'd be happy to host you at a club if my schedule permits.

[Jeff Fortson]

Pat,
 
There is a HUGE difference between you and a guy like Jeff F. You both dislike acess whores, both miss some friends who were classic GCA posters and both miss the GOLDEN DAYS when you were discoveng GCA on the internet.

However, YOU still try to make the site better. YOU still create interesting discussion topics. YOU share your insights into the incredible number of great courses that you have played. YOU decided to have another GCA have outing this fall and have created a first class agenda. YOU are what I call a builder.

Jeff, on the other hand, does NONE of this. He makes absolutely ZERO positive contribution for years, then makes a post that rips the site. He then gets emboldened by a few PM's, so he continues his rant.

I have found in life there are two kind of people: 1) Builders (risk takers, inventors, and entrepeneurs, etc.) who move the world forward and 2) Everyone else...


Within the "everyone else" category, is a small minority of whiners, complainers and naysayers. They have been there forever. They are part of HISTORY.  I know them. I met them when I was president of my fraternity, when I was on my local school board, when I became  board member of my golf club and helped lead a restoration effort. They are the Jeff Forstens of the world. I knew it when I read his post. They have neither the courage nor the capacity to build, so they try to knock down. They have plenty of excuses why they don't lead....but the truth is they are simply far more comfortable when they are knocking something. And they are at their back-stabbing worst when someone like Pat Mucci encourages them. You see Pat, they are gutless, often bullies. So they need the Pat Mucci's and Donnie Beck's of this website, people who actually contribute to CGA.com (but would NEVER say all the harmful things Jeff said) to pump them up. I usually ignore these losers and I can't quite put my finger on why this one irks me so...Oddly, it might have been Jeff's inclusion of a knock of Melvin, which told me Jeff's intent was to harm.

Bill,

Let's share some facts....

#1- Re: my lack of participation, contribution or leadership on this site...  3 1/2 years ago, one month after my daughter was born, my two year old son was diagnosed with autism.  In the last three years I have devoted my ENTIRE life to helping my son get therapy to recover from this horrible condition.  In the last three years my son has gone from literally running in circles for 8+ hours a day, flapping his hands, making sounds that would make an insane asylum look sane, chronic diarrhea without having passed a solid stool for 2+ years, no eye contact, allergies to most foods, not potty trained, and never once communicating his needs... to now being mainstreamed in a typical classroom at a private school, has friends, has vast language, passes normal stools on the toilet all by himself, has eye contact, plays with toys in a typical manner and tells me he loves me everyday.  He's 6 years old now.

Now, I normally wouldn't bring something up like this because it sounds like I am asking for sympathy or an "excuse" as to why I haven't been contributing to the website.  But, considering the attacks you are making on my character, I feel the need to share this to clear the record as to the biggest reason I have been absent for so long.  If you don't know much about autism, I suggest you do some research so you can better understand it.  Maybe then you might think twice before questioning someone's reason for being absent from a website for a while.  Tough choice... heal my child or talk about alps and redans...  hmmmmm?  What should I have done more of?


#2-  I tried to take our conversation private to try to de-escalate the angst that was building.  After you had questioned and scorned me on this thread by writing a fake public letter of apology from me to Ran in which you detailed my lack of financial contribution to this site, I felt you needed to know why that was.  So, I tried to take the conversation private through PMs.  I didn't want to explain why I hadn't contributed to this website monetarily publicly because it would look self serving.   After I explained to you that I presented Ran a check in person when I met him, that he refused to take it and implored me to spend the money helping my son, I figured that might make you feel like you shouldn't have brought up my lack of donations to the site.  That resulted in no apology and a demand over and over again that I MUST apologize publicly or you would call me out on everything in the forum.  Then you started an actual countdown to when you would start blasting me publicly.  I told you that I stood by my post and that I didn't feel it necessary to apologize.  You then went back on the thread and began to try to stir the pot again.  Let's be clear... I tried to take it private with you and hash it out there to keep the growing drama off the DG.  It was met with threats and a countdown.  YOU have chosen to keep this alive.  I said my piece and I said multiple times that it's ok if you don't agree with it and it could have been left at that.  

#3- I wrote the initial post because I care about this website.  I wanted to share what I had seen as I lurked for all this time.  I wanted to say my piece and move on to contributing again.  I am only writing this post because you have chosen to escalate the attack on my character after I have made more than one attempt to calm the waters with you personally.  This thread had dropped off the first page and I was hoping it would stay that way.  Unfortunately, you have chosen to make it personal with me.  I never once attacked you or mentioned you by name anywhere in my original post.  Looks like you need to take your own advice and admit you're wrong.  But, I doubt that will happen.  


Jeff FORTSON

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I believe you thought 1498 may not, my only problem is that you pulled me into this thread when you said "I'm sick of the elitist mentalities, the groveling access whores, and relatives of famous golfers telling us how the game should be played. "

Telling us, who on here would do as I told them, name one guy - rather low opinion of your fellow members.

Melvyn

[Bill Brightly]

Jeff,

I am sorry to hear about your son's medical condition and I wish all the best to you and your family. Raising an autistic child is certainly an incredibly difficult task.

Now let me explain the true facts to you:

This thread was off the first page and I intended to let it die. I never brought it off page 2.

YOU made a public post ripping this site, completely unfairly, IMO, with the possible exception of a few unnamed gca members who may use this site for access purposes. If that is true,  you had a point there, and those people should stop. Then I defended the site.

You replied by saying that you "singled me out" with your access criticisms because I am an offender. Jeff, that is just one of your many mistakes. I have hosted 7 GCA members at my course and been hosted once, an unsolicited offer when I visited Pinehurst and I paid the greens fee. I also asked a gca super to take my super on a tour as we are doing a restoration, and my super is involved in the shaping. (That did not happen.) I happen to enjoy meeting and hosting GCA members. I enjoy the deep GCA conversations that you can have with fellow geeks, without fear of their eyes glazing over and I like showing them my course.

At that point I had to point out that INACCURATE, mean-spirited criticisms from a total non-participant on this website like you would NOT stand unchallenged. I researched The Good Old GCA Days, spent hours reading old threads...(very selective memory by you old guys the site had just as many OT threads and MANY threads died a quick death...) Lo and behold I found an old Jeff F criticism! (You called the site Golf Course Access.com 8 frigging years ago...)

You went off line and asked me to stop, and I agreed if you would amend your criticisms to AWing,  You said that you stood by EVERY word in your initial post, including attacking a harmless guy like Melvin.  Ran doesn't need me to stick up for him, but once you refused to even apologize for mentioning the other webite, a totally CLASSLESS act, I told you that I would see you back in the public forum, where we are now.

I have tried not to rip you on every point. I let slide the RIDICULOUS comment that you made saying that AWing was OK between pros of clubs because it is a "professional courtesy." You are so HYPOCRITICAL ...You were an assistant Pro at Riveria, big deal!!! You are not even a member! The MEMEBERS own the club, you simply worked there. How dare you get offended that you had to say no to access requests...If local kids hopped the fence and the pro asked you to chase them away, you would go do that, right? It is not a big deal. You had no access to grant in the first place...don't act put out...

My letter was not fake, I was trying to help you out. It was the kind of letter you should have sent to Ran, the guy who told you not to contribute financially to the site because he knew of your family situation. I guess if I have to explain a classy move versus a classless move...I am probably wasting my breath.

Jeff, I have NO DOUBT that I nailed your personality type, and all the private messages that I have received from long time GCA posters have confirmed that. I don't know why you continue to attempt to do battle with me in written words, it is obviouisly not your strength. But if you do NOTHING to improve the website, pick on others, and keep coming back at me...I welcome the challenge. I do suggest that you focus on architecture topics and hope that you find enjoyment there.

[John Moore II]

Jeff-In all seriousness, how many requests did you have? I was at Mid South Club in Pinehurst, a mostly private facility. I had a few people ask me if they could play there and I got every one of them on the course. Even got one out unaccompanied with a foursome. I was happy to get people out. I really think you are complaining just to simply complain. Get over it.

[TEPaul]

You know Pat, I haven't really read this thread but I was just reading your #254 to Sean Arble with some amusement. You mentioned you and me a lot, and of course we have talked about this kind of thing a lot over the years.

But I was just thinking of something kind of odd---eg I think in my thirty some years playing golf I have been approached by people asking me unsolicited for access to play my club and one of my father's---Seminole--maybe less than half a dozen times that had nothing to do with this website.

But from this website I have had maybe 2-3 people solicit me for access to my club but maybe 40 to 50 people through this website solicit me to arrange access for them (many of whom I've never actually met) for access to golf clubs I don't even belong to!! 

Go Figure.   

PS:
Believe it or not, many years ago through this website even David Moriarty called me up and asked me to give him the telephone number of a good friend of mine at Maidstone so he could call him up (because he met him once somewhere) and ask him for access to Maidstone.

I guess that goes to the old saw---the more things change the more they remain the same----or should it be the more things remain the same the more they change? 

[JC Jones]

But from this website I have had maybe 2-3 people solicit me for access to my club but maybe 40 to 50 people through this website solicit me to arrange access for them (many of whom I've never actually met) for access to golf clubs I don't even belong to!! 

Go Figure.   

I find this troubling.

Especially since access to the barn and the archives therein has to be better than any course out there!

[TEPaul]

JC:

I find it troubling because apparently a lot of people who solicit me for access to other clubs  think my golf course sucks compared to the golf courses of a lot of good friends of mine from clubs that I don't belong to.    

I don't mind that an iota but you know what? I call that the Donald Ross CURSE on Guph Mills GC, because back in 1916 when the founding members got him to do GMGC he absolutely guaranteed them that it would be superior to any golf course in this region and perhaps in America. Obviously Ross was well aware that the like of Merion East and Pine Valley were in this region and not far away.  

Even Tom MacWood implied a couple of times on here that my course is sort of second rate. Of course that is typical MacWood because like most all the courses he purports to be an expert on, even if he's never even seen them, he has never seen GMGC either.

It is just amazing to me how some people on here think and it's getting more amazing to me every day it seems.  

My goal, though, is to be more like C.B. Macdonald every day, and particularly as reflected in this wonderful exchange about him:

Clarence Piper had been to see C.B. at NGLA in the early 1920s and via letter Alan Wilson asked Piper if C.B. tried to take his head off. Piper wrote back and said; "No, he didn't try to take MY head off but he did allow that everybody else was an idiot!" 

[John Moore II]

Tom: I hope my off the board question to you did not seem disrespectful, but given your present statement it may have been. I asked, not because I thought your course was in any way inferior to the courses named in my question, but because I felt you would have the best and most respectful answer to my question AND because I believe it would have been disrespectful to you personally if I asked to play your course or ask you to arrange access for me.

I personally don't think this site has 'jumped the shark' and I think in general nearly every person on here who is a member at a private club is more than willing to share their course with others, if approached about it the right way. I once asked Mr. Huntley if it would be possible to play MPCC, but only after I had another GCA member whom I had met personally contact him before hand. That is the proper way to do it, I think.

[David_Elvins]

But from this website I have had maybe 2-3 people solicit me for access to my club but maybe 40 to 50 people through this website solicit me to arrange access for them (many of whom I've never actually met) for access to golf clubs I don't even belong to!! 

Tom,
I suspect that some think that GMGC is so exclusive that not even you can get them on there.  

[PThomas]

no it hasnt

i agree somethings could be better about it...but i'd bet its never been perfect...and neither am i nor any of you

I've been part of GCA for more than 6 years already, and as someone already pointed out, this kind of thread does pop up from time to time

i've met many nice people thru GCA, some of whom have done favors for me that I could never possible repay...and i've done a few smaller favors for others, and hope i can continue to do so...

whenever I hear people talking about "the good old days", i always think of the speech in "The American President"..go to about the 2:48 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWRVbWMvi7c

to be able to communicate with so many good people about the game i love so much -  next to my family, playing a good golf course, esp for the first time, is my favorite thing to do in the world

Jeff, might i suggest you start some good architecture threads? 

thanks Ran and all my GCA friends

[henrye]

....in a typical classroom at a private school, has friends, has vast language, passes normal stools on the toilet all by himself, has eye contact, plays with toys in a typical manner and tells me he loves me everyday.  He's 6 years old now.

Now, I normally wouldn't bring something up like this because it sounds like I am asking for sympathy...

Jeff, you may not be asking for it, but you certainly have mine.  Fantastic news about your son.

[Sean_A]

I have said before it doesn't really matter to me if folks agree or not because its my opinion and absent nearly all the evidence my opinion is the best I can offer, but I will try to explain again.  

When your head is stuck in the sand you can't see the evidence.
Jeff presented it, I presented it and TEPaul and others have presented it.
But, strangely,lyou remain in denial.


I can accept that behind closed doors all sorts of stuff goes on even access requests.  I do however, especially without evidence presented, find it hard to believe that these situations on a whole are any sort of serious problem for THE BOARD.  The problem is between the access seekers and those being asked - not with me or hundreds of other people on the board.  

That's why you don't get it.
It's not a collective incident/problem directed at the BOARD, it's a series of incidents directed at individual participants on the BOARD.

Should Jeff, TE, myself and others "OUT" someone every time access is requested ?
I don't think any of us are interested in that practice.
Better to let it go and not bring each incident public.
But, it's also good to serve notice to lurkers and participants alike, especially new participants.

If you were a member of PV, Sunningdale or Swinley Forest I think you'd be singing a different tune.[/b]

Given that is is undeniably the true, why do folks go on the board to whinge when their comments should be directed at the (apparently hundreds of guilty parties if Pat's accusations are accurate) guilty parties?  

For the same reason that a "PUBLIC NOTICE" is posted.
OR, in terms you might understand, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
OR, better to nip it in the bud .....

In other words, Pat's, Jeff's of whoever's problem doesn't become my problem because we are members of the same board.  As I have no personal connection with these chaps, I don't want to hear their personal problems and then be insulted on top when in fact, I have done nothing wrong unless disagreeing with Pat is now considered wrong.  I know Pat thinks so, but until he can learn to control himself and or present the eviidence, I don't care about his opinion.  It works out well, because unlike the hundreds of access seekers hounding Pat endlessly, I don't need any favours from Pat.

The ONLY reason it's not your problem is that you don't belong to or can arrange guest privileges at a course where access is sought.

Reread the part about an ounce of prevention.

I didn't take you to task and insult you because you disagreed with me in principle, but, because you ignored and dismissed the facts and experiences presented by Jeff, myself, TE and others.

Here we have unrelated parties from different sections of the country informing the board that its a problem and you're denying that it's a problem and essentially calling us liars.

And for that, you deserve to be taken to task and insulted.

I've hosted dozens upon dozens of participants at clubs, so it's not as if I don't extend the courtesy.
When Jeff brought the issue to everyone's attention, I merely confirmed that it's a problem that I and others had experienced and that I'd prefer NOT to continue to experience it.

If you want to be so stupid as to support the AW activity, go ahead and do so.

What you also fail to realize is that it's just not participants who engage in this activity, but lurkers as well
Hence, like a public notice, Jeff's plea to cease and desist has merit.

While you've declined any favors from me, I'd be happy to host you at a club if my schedule permits.

Pat

You have presented next to no evidence - those are the facts.  Now you say up to 50 people have cold called you.  If this is the case, that is probably somewhere in the region of once every other month since you have been on the board.  Post your public notice under your name or at the bottom of your posts.  My contention has been because relatively few people have hassled relateeively few people on this board that it isn't a board problem.  You nor anybody else hasn't produced anywhere near enough info to convince we have an epidemic problem on the board.  Again, I could be wrong, but without the facts...

I do very much get that your problem is a series of incidents not directed at the board, that is why I suggest you handle these incidents privately - they are not a board issue.  If you feel you must post a public notice use the space below your name or at the bottom of your post.  That lets people know in no uncertain terms how you feel without hvaing to rehash this same subject every year.   

No, I am not a member of one of the elite clubs, but I do get cold calls for games.  The diffeence is I don't mind, but I fully understand that others would and that is why I wouldn't cold call someone. 

When did I ever give you the impression that I support folf cold calling you or anybody elese except for myself?  There is no need to fal back on accusations that are clearly not accurate merely because it is my opinion that cold calling is a problem for a few people on the board rather than a wide spread issue which can't be dealt with in a private manner.  This leads me to my final point, when did I ever give you the impression that you need to publicy take folks to task for cold calling?  I have repeatedly stated these issues should be dealt with privately because they ARE NOT BOARD ISSUES.  You are known for pulling switches with your argumentative behaviour, but at least try and be clever about it. 

Thank you for the invite, but I would rather an apology for your pointless insults and a gesture that you will in the future refrain from needlessly insulting folks on this board.  It is all too common an occurrence which serves no positive purpose. 

Ciao   



 

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I understand your comments and appreciate the time you have taken with this issue. I am afraid it hits a little close to home for me. When I knew I was traveling to a certain part of the country I contacted someone who used to post here regarding two private courses I wanted to play in the area. He contacted a friend who was a member at one of the courses and this gentleman arranged tee times at his course and the other course for me and my son. We paid full fare, I wouldn't have it any other way, and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. However, it seems I may have violated protocal here. Both men were very gracious and eager to accomodate me so I never got a sense I was out of line. I did not think it out of line for me to seek access to the courses. However, I did conclude that I would not post pictures and a report on my adventures on this website. That seemed like an invasion of privacy. down the road if a discussion here were relevant to these courses I might post thoughts even a picture but I am not certain if that is proper. In any event, I have had a handful of people contact me about playing courses to which I have special access and I have not hesitated in arranging a tee time for them, some of whom I never met, or met once and wouldn't know them if I passed them on the street. I would suggest if someone is concerned about access seekers they do not publish on here their affiliation with certain clubs. Otherwise, Sean I agree that it seems to be a problem for a small fraction of the people on this discussion group.

Kelly

Thats just it!  Some people mind and some don't.  THERE IS NO STANDARD ON THIS SORT OF THING other than what folks are comfortable with.  Because I (or whoever) wouldn't do it should mean squat to you or anybody else.  Go with your gut as its often better to apologize than it is to wait for permission. 

On a side note, I can recall contacting you and requesting access to YOU at Lederach rather than the course itself.  It sealed the deal for me to include Lederach in my Philly itinerary because you were playing.  I was the lucky one because it isn't often one gets to play with the archie on such an interesting course. 

Ciao 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()