[DMoriarty]

Don,

Mac asked a question. I answered.  If he didn't want a frank and honest answer, he probably shouldn't have asked.

That is how frank and honest discussion is supposed to work, isn't it?

[Tom_Doak]

But Mac's question is about honest and frank commentary, and with regard to the Dismal courses, that most certainly does not exist on this website.  That is my beef against Dismal River.  The participants, including the owner, a superintendent, and one architect, and many vocal members, have made it impossible to discuss these courses openly and frankly.

Assuming I am the "one architect", how and where have I made it impossible to discuss either course at Dismal River?  Or Don?  Please list specific examples, or go back and find them.  I haven't erased anything I've said.

You can say anything you want about my course, as long as you allow me the right to disagree.  We've done that here already, about your criticism that the 18th green does not come back to the first tee.  The fact that you don't like that carries next to no weight with me, but you can harp on it all you want.

[Mac Plumart]

I believe this lack of frank and honest discussion is far more wide spread than discussions about Dismal.

Also, people can be frank and honest and still be civil.  

[Kevin Lynch]

Also, people can be frank and honest and still be civil.  

DING!  DING!  DING!!

When people are disproportionately hostile, that's usually where threads break down.  Some seem to equate "frankness" with "abrasiveness," and it's so counterproductive.  It doesn't help the site, the discussion, or your own point, for that matter. 

I've heard Ran be brutally honest about a course in my interactions with him.  I've never once felt he was uncivil or hostile.  His image is a good one to keep in mind while participating.

[Chris Johnston]

Don,

What have I ever said negative about the courses at Dismal River?  I've loved every Doak course I have ever played, and while I haven't played DR Red and don't intend to, I have no doubt the golf course is excellent. The photos look great. As for the Nicklaus course, I don't recall ever discussing its merits.

But Mac's question is about honest and frank commentary, and with regard to the Dismal courses, that most certainly does not exist on this website.  That is my beef against Dismal River.  The participants, including the owner, a superintendent, and one architect, and many vocal members, have made it impossible to discuss these courses openly and frankly.  To find anything about them beyond the informercial presented here, you have to go through back channels.  To discuss them you have to do it offline.   On gca.com, it is just pretty pictures, "iconic" descriptions, and a quick rebuff by the above named if anyone dares post anything remotely or even potentially critical.

It has become a joke.  A private joke, because no one dares say anything publicly, but it has become a joke nonetheless.

Ah, here comes David...

I don't believe anyone I know has done anything to inhibit open and frank discussion about either course here or any course at all...and I know the architect, a superintendent, and many very honest and honorable members who participate here.  As to the infomercial reference, that tells so much about you David, that a book could be written on that topic alone...and you keep adding more chapters

I believe Mr. Smith created a thread that was very open to frank discussion unless, I suppose, your definition of that is your usual bile as you brought forth yet again on this thread.  

Another point where you are off base...I can't speak for anyone else but I actually relish constructive criticism for perfect doesn't exist in golf and we like what we like.  There is a big difference between constructive criticism and the bile you peddle.  But, it's obvious you don't listen.

I'm thrilled you don't intend to visit for that really brings me joy, and I doubt anyone else cares.  That you seem hellbent on besmirching efforts by good people is a problem, but it's YOUR problem.  If there are others here who find things a joke...well, I'm glad we could make them laugh.  My place is a place of joy and fun centered around a game we love.  And, no, I don't expect you to understand that.

I don't believe I have rebuffed any honest critic...not once.  Unlike you, David, who am I to judge the opinion of another?  I don't tell you, or anyone, where they should and shouldn't post yet how we post really does define the character of who we are.  Here, we find you on another thread hijacked to the rabbit hole .  Well played!

And, yes, it is a big world!  Thanks for reminding us all.  I hope you can find a place in it where you find joy yourself, aside from being the chief critic and protector of the bile than does nothing to further open and frank discussion on Ran's fine website.  He has more patience for your antics than I would.

If you want to start a thread criticizing any course, there is a button for that at the top of the page.  Feel free.  Maybe you and the conveniently unnamed jokesters can have a ball doing it.  Maybe it will change the game...maybe even the world!  Heck, I'll even start that thread for you in a few minutes just in case you don't know how.

CJ

[Tom_Doak]

I believe this lack of frank and honest discussion is far more wide spread than discussions about Dismal.

Also, people can be frank and honest and still be civil.  

Mac:

Frankly, the thread on Dismal was silly.  You and Eric consistently said one hole is great and the other one is even better and I score it ... Green +1.  It couldn't have been less analytical if you'd tried.

It was getting to the point that I thought it would discourage people from going to Dismal River and judging for themselves, and I said as much to Eric, privately.  

I did not react to any criticism about the Red course, online or off.  I didn't have to because there was really no criticism offered, and that was the weakness of the thread.  But those who failed to post any criticism they wanted to, have only themselves to blame.

[Mike Hendren]

With respect to the impact of frank discussion on this site I'm remiinded of the famed quote by Wallace Stanley Sayre:  "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

For nearly all of us here this is an academic exercise.    But for the few legitimate golf architecture participants on this site, iit is a legitimate tacit - and sometimes though rarely, blatant opporunity to shape opinions, establish collaborations and gain knowledge that can be applied (whether on a club committee or elsewhere).  That's the real achievement.

I'll never make one iota of difference - trust me, you don't want me to. I've never been into achievement anyway.  That said, this site is invaluable to me in so many ways and I am grateful to Ran and each and every one of you for your contributions.

Bogey

[DMoriarty]

So we now have insulting conniptions from the super, the architect, and the owner.  How long before Kavanaugh checks in to take his shots?    

What a great place for open discussion!
________________________________________________________________________

Tom Doak, In that conversation you mentioned you saw fit to lash out with name calling and insults, and you continue along the same lines here.  That you feel the need to point out that you don't care what I think makes my point for me.

You obviously have the "right to disagree" but the name calling and insults don't exactly engender frank and honest commentary.  

I do agree with your last post to Mac, though.  It was silly.  But everyone was afraid to say it.  That is my point.

[Tom_Doak]

That you feel the need to point out that you don't care what I think makes my point for me.

No, it doesn't.  I didn't call you any names or insult you, at least in this thread.  Saying that your issue of the course not finishing at the 1st tee carries next to no weight with me, is not the same as I "don't care what you think," and is not an insult.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don, Tom: just to say (and because I think a lot of people on this site are just like me): I've always tried to remain conscious of the fact that, while for me this is a fun hobby, for a number of you golf course design/construction is your livelihood. Since I'm conscious of that, I'm also aware that what might be from me a half-assed comment/joke is to the working professional a criticism, real or imagined, and it can mean a great deal -- it can hurt, at the very least, and it can damage reputations and cost them money. And so (and again, I think most posters on this site are like me) I have tried my best to spend my time expressing what I like instead of expressing what I don't like; have tried never to criticize a course or an architect by name . While I've no doubt failed to honour that all the time, I'd like to think that for the most part I've kept my criticisms very very general and high level (one of the reasons I tend to start those philosophical/theoretical threads). Now, my approach is not the only way, of course, and others can approach it how they wish. But what my approach means is that, for example, on the White vs Red match up, you'll see that I never criticized a single hole on either course -- instead, I noted what I thought were positives and then let my 'vote' indicate what I though was the better of the two golf holes. Now, Tom, you're right - that makes for boring and less than controversial threads, and threads on which no one really learns anything new or interesting (especially, as I playfully acknowledged over and over again, when the posts come from me, who has never seen either course.) So what do we have left? Openly criticize and we can/do hurt reputations; but tend to accentuate the positives and we get pablum. Hard to know how to participate without going OT all the time and/or complaining about Golf Digest. Anyway, that's my experience of it. I think I'll start a thread on how astronauts high on acid might understand Behr's writing...

Peter

[John Kirk]

Adam Clayman compiled a list of threads about Dismal River (White) in 2012.  In these threads, there is lots of discussion about the course, some positive and some negative.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51411.msg1174962.html#msg1174962

I felt the recent Dismal River Red versus White thread was difficult to comment on.  I made a few careful observations.  Yes, having CJ participate daily makes it more difficult to say I don't like something.  I like the new course a lot more than the original course.  There, I said it.

I want Dismal River to succeed, and for all our friends involved to be happy and successful.  Sometimes that desire trumps the need for frank commentary.  Besides that, I am a founding/charter member in two golf clubs that opened in 2006, so I think I understand how it feels to open your club and course up to intense scrutiny.

[Terry Lavin]

I believe this lack of frank and honest discussion is far more wide spread than discussions about Dismal.

Also, people can be frank and honest and still be civil.  

Mac:

Frankly, the thread on Dismal was silly.  You and Eric consistently said one hole is great and the other one is even better and I score it ... Green +1.  It couldn't have been less analytical if you'd tried.

It was getting to the point that I thought it would discourage people from going to Dismal River and judging for themselves, and I said as much to Eric, privately.  

I did not react to any criticism about the Red course, online or off.  I didn't have to because there was really no criticism offered, and that was the weakness of the thread.  But those who failed to post any criticism they wanted to, have only themselves to blame.

Agreed. I love Dismal. I like the Nicklaus course and think the Doak is incomparably better. But who gives a shit?  If you're lucky enough to go there you can play both. And you're at Dismal, the club, which is unbelievable. Comparing the courses diminishes the club, unless one wants to fan the flames. Why?  The place is hot without the exercise.

[Chris Johnston]

David,

I didn't mean to insult you, I simply thought you liked hijacking threads and typing bile about places you know nothing about and have never seen in person. 

If it were my desire, rest assured I could insult you quite easily and far deeper than you would like (as you have me numerous times) but, alas, your style isn't my style.  I will say the next time you make unfounded and personal comments, I reserve the right to change my style to your style. 

I will share an idea a member (you would be surprised who) proposed to me...showing a keen sense of humor, we may name our on course (shall I say) "comfort" station between 4 and 5..."Moriarty House".   

I might even make it an infomercial 

CJ

[Tom_Doak]

Don, Tom: just to say (and because I think a lot of people on this site are just like me): I've always tried to remain conscious of the fact that, while for me this is a fun hobby, for a number of you golf course design/construction is your livelihood. Since I'm conscious of that, I'm also aware that what might be from me a half-assed comment/joke is to the working professional a criticism, real or imagined, and it can mean a great deal -- it can hurt, at the very least, and it can damage reputations and cost them money.

 Now, Tom, you're right - that makes for boring and less than controversial threads, and threads on which no one really learns anything new or interesting (especially, as I playfully acknowledged over and over again, when the posts come from me, who has never seen either course.) So what do we have left? Openly criticize and we can/do hurt reputations; but tend to accentuate the positives and we get pablum. Hard to know how to participate without going OT all the time and/or complaining about Golf Digest. Anyway, that's my experience of it. I think I'll start a thread on how astronauts high on acid might understand Behr's writing...

Peter

Peter:

The thread on astronauts on acid would be a hoot, except possibly to Buzz Aldrin and his family.  I'd love to read it myself.

The fact that you even had to say the first part of your post is a shame.

Yes, it's possible to damage reputations and cost someone money.  That's why everyone who posts here is ethically and morally bound to be honest in their opinions ... and sadly some are not.  But it's even more sad if those who are, are reluctant to say anything meaningful.  Then we're just all wasting time here.

From that same book I've been quoting lately:

"At no time in the history of mankind has the following situation been seen in such an acute form.  Say Mr. John Smith Jr., JD, is employed as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry in Washington D.C., which, as we all know, is engaged in the business of killing people for profit.  Ask any of his relatives (or friends) why they can tolerate it and don't just ostracize him or harass him to tears, avoid him at the next family funeral.  The answer is likely to be "everyone needs to make a living" -- as they are hedging the possibility of their falling into the same situation someday."

The author's solution for this, interestingly, is that the only people you can really trust are those who have "skin in the game", or better yet, "soul in the game."  Opinions without personal consequence can be dishonest, and often in the modern world, may be dishonest for the sake of profit.  For those of you who aren't in the business, we can only hope that you value your place on this site and value that others believe you're being honest, instead of petty.  [That is why we distrust anyone who hides behind an alias, most of all someone who does so because they "are in the golf business and cannot risk their reputation to post here."]   Those of us who are in the business, are making or destroying our personal reputations here, and we'd better know it.

[Chris Johnston]

Adam Clayman compiled a list of threads about Dismal River (White) in 2012.  In these threads, there is lots of discussion about the course, some positive and some negative.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51411.msg1174962.html#msg1174962

I felt the recent Dismal River Red versus White thread was difficult to comment on.  I made a few careful observations.  Yes, having CJ participate daily makes it more difficult to say I don't like something.  I like the new course a lot more than the original course.  There, I said it.

I want Dismal River to succeed, and for all our friends involved to be happy and successful.  Sometimes that desire trumps the need for frank commentary.  Besides that, I am a founding/charter member in two golf clubs that opened in 2006, so I think I understand how it feels to open your club and course up to intense scrutiny.

"I like the new course a lot more than the original course.  There, I said it."   John, shhh, don't tell anyone but I do too

And, for the record, I think I only commented once aside from discussion of the bridge/walkaround questions that only I could answer properly and thanking Eric when it ended.  You never have to worry about offending me, my friend - I fully support you liking what you like, but I don't recall you playing the White course.

I also find nothing untoward with Eric and Mac feeling holes are great and/or favoring one over another - their opinions belong to them and I think the purpose of the thread was in fun rather than a deep dive.  Then again, with two courses it's inevitable and we happliy see that all the time.

You need not worry about Dismal's success, but I think I understand why you might.  In truth, we turned that corner three years ago.  As far as "happiness", I've never seen a more fun, happy, and laid back place in golf.

[Tim Martin]

Sometimes I think this site has become to successful.

It seems everywhere I go and just about everyone I meet that is involved in golf knows about this site. What is written here does follow you around and while that may be fine for those who just play the game, for those of us in the game, it can be tough as every negative or "frank and honest criticism" seems to bother someone somewhere.

If you criticize a course, an architect, or a builder, it is very possible your comments will get to them, and they will not like it.

Don- As someone who is "in the game" wouldn't it make more sense not to "criticize a course, an architect, or a builder" on a public website if in fact that could negatively impact your livelihood? I don't understand how you can lament "it can be tough as every negative or frank or honest criticism seems to bother someone somewhere" when it was your choice to put it out there. If I am off the mark then please tell me what I am missing. Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

You asked for an example, Tom.  Go back and look at the previous discussion you mentioned for your example.

But more to the point, Tom, surely you must realize that by asserting your "right to disagree" in these discussions about your own courses, you chill frank and honest commentary about those courses, don't you?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

JC,

Thanks for actually trying to make this a productive discussion.  I'd like to answer your questions, but I don't think we are quite talking about the same thing. I really don't care about anyone's likes or dislikes, except to the extent that such opinions provide an avenue into a discussion of golf course architecture.  There just doesn't seem to be much depth of discussion regarding gca because with certain courses and certain people, everyone freaks out at the slightest hint of criticism. There is no discussion, just people saying they really, really, really looove this hole, but they really, really, really, really love, love, love that one.

That is what has grown frustrating for me, and it is not just about Dismal.  So much of the discussion is just about visceral likes and dislikes without any attempt to try and dig deeper.   The same thing is going on with ANGC.   All the ANGC lovers have circled the wagons and any attempt to try and discuss it is being met with a how-dare-you criticize this great institution?! How-dare-you ruin my viewing pleasure?!  Well, we should dare.  Frank discussion of golf course architecture ought to involve delving deeper than just visceral likes and dislikes.  We can love a place, yet still critically analyze the architecture.  That is what separates those who love golf course architecture from those who just love golf or even golf courses.

As for the DR Red, I agree that it seems pretty much off limits.  The closest I can think of to potential criticisms are a few allusions to difficult walks, discussion of a bad bounce, and when I and a few others asked a few questions about the unusual dead end routing and the required commutes, and the reaction to the last was swift and harsh from all the involved parties.  For me, when one of our great architects departs from a centuries old custom of finishing near the first tee, it is worth exploring.  But it obviously is not possible in this environment.    

My whitewashing pun wasn't about my opinion of the course, but about what seems to be a pretty strong effort at rehabilitating the reputation of the Nicklaus course.  No doubt it is well-meaning, but I think the message is out that wholesale criticisms of DR white are not welcome.  Even Tom Doak seems to be half trying to bite his lip about the course. (See his non-comment comments about Tiger's comments.)  I agree that criticisms were once commonplace around here but I think you have to go back a ways to  close to a different ownership regime to find a candid and honest criticism of the course.  The new party line seems to be that it is a quirky and much misunderstood gem that requires play after play after play to appreciate. When this paradigm was challenged in the pillow fight thread, again reaction was swift and harsh.  

As for me, I haven't played it, but by the descriptions from people I trust (mostly either old or offline) I doubt it would be my cup of tea.  Of course, your results may vary.    

ADDED:  I see now you have deleted your posts and questions.  Take my response for whatever you think it worth.
_________________________________________________

Chris Johnston,

This isn't a Dismal thread.  I didn't hijack anything.  I answered Mac's question.  That is how frank discussion is supposed to work.

This is not the first time you threatened me with your innuendo about unnamed "deep cutting" insults and gossip. Your repeated allusion to such things really speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.  

As for your outhouse quip, yet another classy move on your part.  You can name your building after me provided we can agree to appropriate compensation.
________________________________________________

One other general point regarding frank and honest discussion, and whether it is being suppressed . . . Look at what happened to the Dismal pillow fight thread!  Tom Doak thought the thread might discourage people from from going out (I agree) and so he contacted Eric and the thread was killed.    Hardly open and frank commentary.   More like a mutual marketing decision. 

[Mike_Young]

I think the main thing this site achieves is ENTHUSIASM for Golf Course Architecture. There will always be the politics involved in saying what one feels on this site or any site for those in the business but that becomes a personal choice.  There may be pages of incorrect information that may become a part of history and yet there will be more pages of correct information that would never have been gathered without this site.  But as golf design dwindles and the boom years become further in the rear view mirror then this may be the one place that generates enthusiasm for people that were not involved or had no interest when the boom was here.  

[Tom_Doak]

You asked for an example, Tom.  Go back and look at the previous discussion you mentioned for your example.

But more to the point, Tom, surely you must realize that by asserting your "right to disagree" in these discussions about your own courses, you chill frank and honest commentary about those courses, don't you?

David:

I'm sure I lost my temper in that old thread, and have no desire to revisit it.  We are all human, and we all make mistakes.  But you dragged that forward here and said I was doing so again, with no basis in fact.

And to your second point, I'll test it on a separate thread.

[Terry Lavin]

I like Mike. We are enthusiasts but exercises that are cloaked as analysis or competition dilute the product if it's nothing but hype.

[Mark Bourgeois]

That is what has grown frustrating for me, and it is not just about Dismal.  So much of the discussion is just about visceral likes and dislikes without any attempt to try and dig deeper.   The same thing is going on with ANGC.   All the ANGC lovers have circled the wagons and any attempt to try and discuss it is being met with a how-dare-you criticize this great institution?! How-dare-you ruin my viewing pleasure?!  Well, we should dare.  Frank discussion of golf course architecture ought to involve delving deeper than just visceral likes and dislikes.  We can love a place, yet still critically analyze the architecture.  That is what separates those who love golf course architecture from those who just love golf or even golf courses.

David,

I actually see the ANGC discussions differently. The comments are more purely about the architecture, even if their depths vary. (Certainly I include mine as going in the shallow end at times. I am a sucker for the easy quip.)

So I feel pretty comfortable making all sorts of comments. The reason I do is that I can't possibly believe anyone can be personally or professionally affected by any comments relating to the architecture, even tangentially. Nobody here is a member there. All the original protagonists are long gone and someone would have to be out of their tree to believe their posts could affect the likelihood they will get to play the course. I mean, why not start building your own personal rocket ship to Mars? Your odds of that round trip are better than one to Washington Avenue. Lastly, I find it laughable to envision someone like Billy Payne coming to the site and quietly steaming over various slings and arrows launched against "his" architecture.

So I think ANGC is probably the purest, best opportunity of any famous course for frank discussion. It's actually a model -- people go after each other's arguments, but they spend a lot more time, a lot more, just going after each other's arguments rather than launching ad hominem broadsides. (Even though that can test one's patience. Like, for example, if some people just unilaterally decided to make up their own definitions for accepted terms.)

I feel comfortable ruffling feathers because no one, no matter how much they love or hate The Masters Course or its cousin the members course, is going to make one fig of difference about that course's fortunes. Rater-rankers could drop that course right out of every magazine rating and no.one.will.care. (Well, the publishers will love it because it will generate page views, click throughs, and newstand sales.)

I am willing to accept all of this may just be my mindset rather than an objective statement of facts. In other words, maybe it's just my own world I live in. 

[Tom_Doak]

One other general point regarding frank and honest discussion, and whether it is being suppressed . . . Look at what happened to the Dismal pillow fight thread!  Tom Doak thought the thread might discourage people from from going out (I agree) and so he contacted Eric and the thread was killed.    Hardly open and frank commentary.   More like a mutual marketing decision. 

How is that suppressing frank and honest discussion?  We've both agreed there wasn't any happening!

[Chris Johnston]

You asked for an example, Tom.  Go back and look at the previous discussion you mentioned for your example.

But more to the point, Tom, surely you must realize that by asserting your "right to disagree" in these discussions about your own courses, you chill frank and honest commentary about those courses, don't you?

_________________________________________________________________________________________


As for the DR Red, I agree that it seems pretty much off limits.  The closest I can think of to potential criticisms are a few allusions to difficult walks, discussion of a bad bounce, and when I and a few others asked a few questions about the unusual dead end routing and the required commutes, and the reaction to the last was swift and harsh from all the involved parties.  For me, when one of our great architects departs from a centuries old custom of finishing near the first tee, it is worth exploring.  But it obviously is not possible in this environment.    

My whitewashing pun wasn't about my opinion of the course, but about what seems to be a pretty strong effort at rehabilitating the reputation of the Nicklaus course.  No doubt it is well-meaning, but I think the message is out that wholesale criticisms of DR white are not welcome.  Even Tom Doak seems to be half trying to bite his lip about the course. (See his non-comment comments about Tiger's comments.)  I agree that criticisms were once commonplace around here but I think you have to go back a ways to  close to a different ownership regime to find a candid and honest criticism of the course.  The new party line seems to be that it is a quirky and much misunderstood gem that requires play after play after play to appreciate. When this paradigm was challenged in the pillow fight thread, again reaction was swift and harsh.  

As for me, I haven't played it, but by the descriptions from people I trust (mostly either old or offline) I doubt it would be my cup of tea.  Of course, your results may vary.    
_________________________________________________

Chris Johnston,

This isn't a Dismal thread.  I didn't hijack anything.  I answered Mac's question.  That is how frank discussion is supposed to work.

This is not the first time you threatened me with your innuendo about unnamed "deep cutting" insults and gossip. Your repeated allusion to such things really speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.  

As for your outhouse quip, yet another classy move on your part.  You can name your building after me provided we can agree to appropriate compensation.

My Dear David,

I didn't threaten you, I told you directly that I may stoop to your scum level trolling if you persist on making personal criticisms, which have nothing at all to do with architecture as you cling.  If you make it personal, expect it in return.  Your act is cute, you slash, and then claim harm when others respond.  Very cute, indeed.

I started a thread here on GCA for you to have an open and frank discussion about Dismal River.  I'm sure you will keep your comment to architecture, right?  Aside from continued whining, I see you haven't taken the opportunity to participate in open and frank discussion.  This being so, one must wonder what really is your motive?  That would be a fine place for you (and any other invisible ninjas) to openly discuss anything you like.  It will be hard for you, I know, for you have never seen the place but please have at it.  For your sake, I hope you find oodles of controversy, and don't forget to kick Mr. Nicklaus on your way out.

I never said I was naming the shithouse after you but, well, if the shoe fits...  I had a much loved pet once who, ironically, was named Moriarty...or something like that.  Wild coincidence, huh?  I miss that cuddly little skunk that (I believe) Tom or Don inadvertantly (or not) ran over with a bulldozer.  I think we may have buried little Moriarty at the same location.  In hindsight, I probably should have had him "descented" before putting him in Doaks cabin.  Live and learn, and there certainly seems no shortage of skunks in the world, but I doubt I'll ever find one quite as cuddly as little Moriarty.

Thanks for the judgment, but I think I'll let those who know me have that privilege rather than a troll who has never met me yet is compelled to judge me.  Since you raised the topic about another, maybe you wanna tell us what kind of person you are?  If you want judge others, you might want to be transparent yourself, huh?  Me?  I am a sinner and make no claim to judgement nor perfection.  

Have a nice night and please join me in a moment of silence for little "Moriarty".  Bless his heart, he was a good skunk.

Have fun at the thread about Dismal River.  I would hope that no members, designer, or "a superintendent" will interfere or participate.

Fondly,

CJ

[Chris Johnston]

TD,
We'll just have to disagree on whether I had a basis, Tom.  On the second point, I'll be curious to see to your "test," but I would hope that you would already realize that your very presence chills frank criticism of your courses.

How is that suppressing frank and honest discussion?  We've both agreed there wasn't any happening!

But others were enjoying it, and I have to admit I do like the pictures.   

I do agree with you on that there wasn't much frank and honest discussion happening.  But don't you think it a bit much that you could so quickly and easily kill the thread?  Especially given that it really didn't have anything but praise for your course?   It seems like you are controlling the message, to the point of micromanaging it. 
__________________________________________________________

My Dear David,

I didn't threaten you, I told you directly that I may stoop to your scum level trolling if you persist on making personal criticisms, which have nothing at all to do with architecture as you cling.  If you make it personal, expect it in return.  Your act is cute, you slash, and then claim harm when others respond.  Very cute, indeed.

Oh no, no threat there.  Boy your really are a class act . . .

I never said I was naming the shithouse after you but, well, if the shoe fits...  I had a much loved pet once who, ironically, was named Moriarty...or something like that.  Wild coincidence, huh?  I miss that cuddly little skunk that (I believe) Tom or Don inadvertantly (or not) ran over with a bulldozer.  I think we may have buried little Moriarty at the same location.  In hindsight, I probably should have had him "descented" before putting him in Doaks cabin.  Live and learn, and there certainly seems no shortage of skunks in the world, but I doubt I'll ever find one quite as cuddly as little Moriarty.

 . . . and honest, too, I see.

I know you find it hard to believe, Chris, but I've no issue with you personally, other than the opinion engendered by posts such as the one immediately above.  We are just here for different purposes.

Shucks, and I thought the skunk post was both funny and my very best work. 

"We are just here for different purposes"  Yep, crystal clear, I contribute, and you don't and tear people down.

Still waiting for your transparency, David.  I mean, before you judge others...

And David, with your tone and insults, you may rest assured I do have issues with a bully like you.  While not my style, you shall receive no quarter from me until you behave like a gentleman.  You see, I have few personal rules other than expecting all to behave in a manner consistent with ladies and gentleman everywhere.  Until you do so, you are a nothing more than a troll and a bully. 

btw - haven't seen you on the open discussion thread.  I must conclude that really wasn't an issue, huh?

[DMoriarty]

I actually see the ANGC discussions differently. The comments are more purely about the architecture, even if their depths vary. (Certainly I include mine as going in the shallow end at times. I am a sucker for the easy quip.)

So I feel pretty comfortable making all sorts of comments. The reason I do is that I can't possibly believe anyone can be personally or professionally affected by any comments relating to the architecture, even tangentially. Nobody here is a member there. All the original protagonists are long gone and someone would have to be out of their tree to believe their posts could affect the likelihood they will get to play the course. I mean, why not start building your own personal rocket ship to Mars? Your odds of that round trip are better than one to Washington Avenue. Lastly, I find it laughable to envision someone like Billy Payne coming to the site and quietly steaming over various slings and arrows launched against "his" architecture.

So I think ANGC is probably the purest, best opportunity of any famous course for frank discussion. It's actually a model -- people go after each other's arguments, but they spend a lot more time, a lot more, just going after each other's arguments rather than launching ad hominem broadsides. (Even though that can test one's patience. Like, for example, if some people just unilaterally decided to make up their own definitions for accepted terms.)

I feel comfortable ruffling feathers because no one, no matter how much they love or hate The Masters Course or its cousin the members course, is going to make one fig of difference about that course's fortunes. Rater-rankers could drop that course right out of every magazine rating and no.one.will.care. (Well, the publishers will love it because it will generate page views, click throughs, and newstand sales.)

I am willing to accept all of this may just be my mindset rather than an objective statement of facts. In other words, maybe it's just my own world I live in. 

Mark,  Sorry I missed this post earlier amongst the fog. I agree with you when you suggest that in some ways ANGC has the potential to be a great course for us all to discuss--no known personal connections, everyone long dead, obviously well respected even by critics, etc.  It is kind of ironic that one of the most private and exclusive clubs also happens to be the one that we all can know something about, and the course where we can actually catch a detailed HD look at every year. It makes it really a good case study. Yet every year there is a bit of a backlash from a certain segment of posters who really seem to be offended that anyone would dare criticize this great course, as if discussing it was somehow diminishing it or picking on it. As if we really ought to just enjoy its grandeur.  I guess I understand it from the perspective from that of a golf fan, or even a course fan, but I don't get this from the perspective of a gca discussion.  It seems no place is better suited for that continuing discussion.

You also mention the strange thread where people took it upon themselves to redefine the contextual terms which have been used for around 100 years to try and understand GCA.  That is one of the threads that really left me shaking my head.  Surely we ought to be able to at least agree on the most basic context for the conversation, but we couldn't.  Yes it tests ones patience, but I wonder if it also says something about the willingness of the participants to actually move beyond likes and dislikes into a more challenging and less black and white discussion. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()