[Patrick_Mucci]

go and read the planning permission with all relevant updates and you will find that they have not been approved.

What makes you think that subsequent approval wasn't obtained seperately ?

The document is far to long to scan and post but feel free to find where they have been approved and post that little section.
It can't be so long if it is an addition.



You could also dig up the news paper reports on their approval after all such a high profile project would have this sort of thing printed in the press as you rightly said.

Newspapers rarely print such mundane items as permits, but, a citation, now that would make headlines.

Oh no, of course you don't have to do you.

That's correct, I didn't make the allegation, you did.

Of course the reason you say this is because you know they have not been approved and you can't back up your allegations that they must have been.

That's not my allegation.
My allegation is that you made an allegation absent substantiating documented evidence.
To date, you've failed to produce any documentation

Same old, same old, Patrick

ps. still no immigration stamp for entering Scotland posted.
Guess you have never been here otherwise you could prove it with the entry stamp

OR, I could prove it through substantiated third party documented evidence, just what I've requested of you.
One only has to view an article and photo of me taken in 1952 at Prestwick, which appeared, I believe, in the "London Daily Mail".
I'd say that those two items evidence my initial entry into Scotland, probably before you were born.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

any changes/additions to the original the planning permission would be added to the original document so you can view it there.

Please, we all know that newspapers are full of lies No, the official entry stamp in the passport will be the proof.

Uhm, where did I get that line of thought on proof

Jon

[Chris Kane]

One only has to view an article and photo of me taken in 1952 at Prestwick, which appeared, I believe, in the "London Daily Mail".
I'd say that those two items evidence my initial entry into Scotland, probably before you were born.

Patrick, you're on very shaky ground pointing to something in the Daily Mail to show the truth of anything!

[Paul Gray]

And again.......

Patrick,

You argue that the only prudent method to prove any breach is to provide evidence that the relevant bodies have taken action concerning said breach. Whilst I made light of it in my last post, this rationale leads to the completely illogical conclusion that if no action has been taken then no breach has occurred. The only way to settle this matter is to directly compare the permissions granted, including any amendments, with the work physically undertaken, ignoring whether or not action relating to breaches has been taken, is pending, has been brush under the carpet or is lost in space!

This is supposedly a website for vaguely intelligent people that can easily see through the bullshit. It's not a court case and your not the accused so please try to stop pursuing the not-enough-evidence-to-convict-me argument.

I await your next long winded attempt at sidestepping Occum's Razor. And I quote "The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." So far, based upon initial consent and the physical landscape, we have evidence of the 'simpler theory,' maybe now you could produce the 'greater explanatory power' in the form of an amendment to consent.

PS: And as for the Daily Mail.......referencing that rag won't win too much support from anyone other than the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One only has to view an article and photo of me taken in 1952 at Prestwick, which appeared, I believe, in the "London Daily Mail".
I'd say that those two items evidence my initial entry into Scotland, probably before you were born.

Patrick, you're on very shaky ground pointing to something in the Daily Mail to show the truth of anything!

So it's your belief that they photoshopped the railroad station and clubhouse in 1952 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You argue that the only prudent method to prove any breach is to provide evidence that the relevant bodies have taken action concerning said breach.

Is the alternative to let every allegation stand unchallenged, without any requirement to produce documented evidence supporting the allegation ?                             

Isn't that reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials ?


Whilst I made light of it in my last post, this rationale leads to the completely illogical conclusion that if no action has been taken then no breach has occurred.

You're making the assumption that a breach has occurred and that's the flaw in and failing of your logic.
You don't know whether or not a breach has occurred, and absent that knowledge, the mere making of allegation doesn't grant validity to the charge.  The burden of proof lies with the one making the allegation.

The only way to settle this matter is to directly compare the permissions granted, including any amendments, with the work physically undertaken, ignoring whether or not action relating to breaches has been taken, is pending, has been brush under the carpet or is lost in space!
That's not the only way to settle the matter.
Why haven't the local legal experts on Scottish Law, who were unaware of the two Freedom of Information Acts, sought the information regarding violations and citations, vis a vis the FOIA ?

This is supposedly a website for vaguely intelligent people that can easily see through the bullshit. It's not a court case and your not the accused so please try to stop pursuing the not-enough-evidence-to-convict-me argument.

But, it is a court case, in terms of public opinion and the production of facts.
One can't go recklessly making unsubstantiated allegations.
When someone accuses another of criminal conduct it ceases being idle chatter.

Just today, Trump won a defamation lawsuit against someone who made false claims against another of his projects.
Trump was awarded $ 5,000,000.
I would imagine that accusing him of breaking the law, absent documented proof, places the accuser on thin ice.

I await your next long winded attempt at sidestepping Occum's Razor. And I quote "The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." So far, based upon initial consent and the physical landscape, we have evidence of the 'simpler theory,' maybe now you could produce the 'greater explanatory power' in the form of an amendment to consent.

There is no documented evidence to support Jon's allegation.
No production of any citation, fines or remediation requirements.
Zero, Zilch, Nada.

Why is it that all of the anti-Trump participants can't produce a single document substantiating any of the three allegations Jon made ?

PS: And as for the Daily Mail.......referencing that rag won't win too much support from anyone other than the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade.

And you and Chris would be the experts on that publication in 1952 ?
Just curious, what are your dates of birth ?
I'd like to place your criticism in context of where you were in 1952.
Oh wait, we're not passing on the editorial content, but the appearance of an article on the British Amateur, accompanied by a photo.
Do you think they politicized golf and the coverage of the 1952 British Amateur ?

I don't mind having battle of wits, but, it's becoming more and more apparent that I'm dueling with unarmed men..

[Chris Kane]

I don't mind having battle of wits, but, it's becoming more and more apparent that I'm dueling with unarmed men..

Just like I'm duelling with someone who doesn't have a sense of humour.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

Absent the smiley's it's hard to decipher intent.

I would have thought that some of my remarks couldn't be attributed/interpreted to/as anything but humor.

[Chris Kane]

Absent the smiley's it's hard to decipher intent.

So you really thought that I was alleging a conspiracy at the Daily Mail in 1952, to enable you to win a shallow debating point on Golfclubatlas.com in 2012?  

I'll stick with my assessment that you don't have a sense of humour. 

[Sean_A]

Pat

Let me tell ya, the conditions of planning applications are broken all the time.  There will be literally thousands (if not tens of thousands) of breaches each year.  There are nowhere enough enforcement officers to enforce conditions.  Often times it will take a neighbour to call the local authority and request a site visit to investigate.  Even if some conditions are known not to be met, the local authority may not act to enforce due to expediency.  In other words, loads of conditions don't carry any weight.  Its not perfect, its not right, but it is reality.  On a project the size of Trump's there are bound to be broken conditions - I would bet on it.  That said, I don't care enough to investigate because I don't get paid to do so.  Even if I were a neighbour of the project, unless there is something seriously amiss (which I highly doubt), I wouldn't bother hassling the local authority because I know the investment of time won't pay high dividends.     

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

PS: And as for the Daily Mail.......referencing that rag won't win too much support from anyone other than the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade.


Just for clarity Patrick, as Chris has also said, I had assumed you wouldn't actually think I was trying to score a point regarding the Daily Mail in 1952. I'll now take it as read that you've been to Britain once, although I think I'm being something of a soft touch in this respect.  

[Jon Wiggett]

What a wonderful world we live in. Patrick and I are actually using the same argument (Patrick will of course deny this ) Me about earthen dams and Patrick, about his alleged visit to Scotland.

You got to laugh

Jon

ps. Patrick, better check if the Mail didn't hack you voicemail back in '52. If they did that might be proof

[Patrick_Mucci]

What a wonderful world we live in. Patrick and I are actually using the same argument (Patrick will of course deny this ) Me about earthen dams and Patrick, about his alleged visit to Scotland.

You got to laugh

Jon

ps. Patrick, better check if the Mail didn't hack you voicemail back in '52. If they did that might be proof


Jon,

You might also check the list of competitors in the 1952 British Amateur and see if the name "Pat Mucci" comes up 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Haven't searched for my 1952 passport, but while the print on the page of my 1992 entry visa is faded and difficult to read, it's stamped: "10 OCT 1992 Glasgow (A)"
It also states, "Leave to Enter for _ months.  Employment Prohibited"

As I said, it's faded and difficult to read, but, I'll photo it, scan it and have it sent to someone who can post it.

I hope you're as diligently working on getting those citations as I am in providing my documentation .

There's another stamp dated "Jan 25 1995", but I can't remember where that was, and the stamp isn't clear.
It must have been in a warm sunny climate and I must have had one hell of a good time.

[Chris Kane]

You might also check the list of competitors in the 1952 British Amateur and see if the name "Pat Mucci" comes up  [/b][/size]

How can we be sure that the Pat Mucci who played in the 1952 Amateur wasn't your father?  By all accounts he was a fantastic player.

[jeffwarne]

You might also check the list of competitors in the 1952 British Amateur and see if the name "Pat Mucci" comes up  [/b][/size]

How can we be sure that the Pat Mucci who played in the 1952 Amateur wasn't your father?  By all accounts he was a fantastic player.

Chris,
It was his father, unless Pat was younger than Bobby Jones when he played in it.....

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Haven't searched for my 1952 passport, but while the print on the page of my 1992 entry visa is faded and difficult to read, it's stamped: "10 OCT 1992 Glasgow (A)"
It also states, "Leave to Enter for _ months.  Employment Prohibited"

As I said, it's faded and difficult to read, but, I'll photo it, scan it and have it sent to someone who can post it.

I hope you're as diligently working on getting those citations as I am in providing my documentation .

There's another stamp dated "Jan 25 1995", but I can't remember where that was, and the stamp isn't clear.
It must have been in a warm sunny climate and I must have had one hell of a good time.

Patrick,

faded as to be difficult to read! Sounds like a photo shop job to me. Could you get a sworn statement from the border control officer who allegedly stamped your passport along with the CCTV footage of the event

Don't remember 1995. Is that your mind that is going

I have proven that there was no permission for their construction Patrick. So unless you can find the permission guess you were wrong

Jon

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Maybe Trump will put up a $5-m reward for anyone that can find Pat's 1952 passport 

Jon (or should I write Venerable Jon), Pope Benedict XVI (who's keen on golf architecture) should be fast-tracking your cononization, based on the patience you have demonstrated throughout this bizarre thread.

At least this thread has remained lighthearted and dignified. Can we end it now... pleeeeeeeeaaassssseeeee...

[Jon Wiggett]

Dónal,

just to keep this thread limping down the same road, is it really 'bizarre' or would 'quirky' better describe its contribution to GCA if indeed contribution is the right term

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donal,

Absolutely not.

There's been a passport sighting not far from Atlanta.

I'll take the $ 5 M in hundreds

Stay tuned

[Michael Whitaker]

Is this what you boys are looking for?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Well................ We're waiting

Donal,

Hundreds would be preferable.
No consecutive serial numbers please

[Paul Gray]

In a former life I was an Insurance Claims Manager in The City. Rule number one: never, under any circumstances, accept copies of anything, scanned or otherwise. 

[Mark Chaplin]

Does that mean you played in the Amateur as a 10 year old?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Well................ We're waiting

Donal,

Hundreds would be preferable.
No consecutive serial numbers please

Patrick,

of course you know where this is going don't you

How do we know the pages with the entry stamp are from the same passport as the photo?
Why try to give the impression that you played in the 1952 Am and then post something that says you would have only been 10 at the time thus making your earlier insinuation ludicrous!
As I have proven there is no permission for previously discussed earthen dams why do you still refuse to either prove me wrong or accept I am right?
Most importantly, why no opinion on the big question bizarre or quirky? 

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()