Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.
Dwight,Did you stay onsite when you played ANGC?
Quote from: Will MacEwen on October 08, 2013, 12:01:59 PMDwight,Did you stay onsite when you played ANGC?I lived in the Butler Cabin for all of 2011 and played a pick-up soccer match on the driving range. True story.
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 07, 2013, 10:35:47 PMQuote from: Dwight Phelps on October 07, 2013, 05:07:34 PMConsidering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this? No you didn't.You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done? The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled. Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on factsYou offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations. Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.When in fact, you never set foot on the property. Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression. Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.Actually, it's easy to figure.It's called intellectual honesty.It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts You know what, Patrick, you're exactly right. I was trying to mislead people into thinking I played the course when I talked about how it came off on TV. I was really hoping that someone would read my opinion and, in so doing, would fall into my trap of getting them to think I'd played ANGC. Lord knows, whether or not you've played the course is extremely relevant to a comment about how it comes off on TV.And then I had the temerity to clarify that I had not played it more than 24 LONG hours later. This 24 hour window is key, because it allowed me to properly hoodwink those 'target readers' that I'm desperately hoping now believe I've played ANGC.Thank you for reminding me, a day after I'd made my clarification, that I should clarify this issue. That was necessary. You saw through my plan to create a 2nd 24 hour 'target reader' window to engage in intellectual dishonesty on those readers that saw my original comment but missed my previous clarification.I'm now beginning to fully understand how to post here - I should prepare my post, then send it to you, Patrick, to insure that any possible intellectually dishonest inferences that I've slipped in can be weeded out by an objective party. I sincerely apologize for thinking that I could engage in this discussion without meeting your requirements, on your schedule.In the future, please feel free to make it clear to all that any post of mine not pre-cleared by you is entirely invalid. Thank you for all your assistance, now and in the future.
Quote from: Dwight Phelps on October 07, 2013, 05:07:34 PMConsidering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this? No you didn't.You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done? The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled. Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on factsYou offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations. Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.When in fact, you never set foot on the property. Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression. Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.Actually, it's easy to figure.It's called intellectual honesty.It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts
Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this? No you didn't.You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done? The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled. Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on factsYou offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations. Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.When in fact, you never set foot on the property. Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression. Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'. Go figure.Actually, it's easy to figure.It's called intellectual honesty.It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts
You know what, Patrick, you're exactly right. I was trying to mislead people into thinking I played the course when I talked about how it came off on TV. I can't speak to your motives, I can only speak to what you typed.If you'd reread what you typed, you'll see that you FIRST rendered your opinion and SUBSEQUENTLY went on to talk about how it came off on TV. You never stated that you had never set foot on the property, thus leading people, intentionally or unintentionally, to believe that your opinion might have been based on on-site observations.I was really hoping that someone would read my opinion and, in so doing, would fall into my trap of getting them to think I'd played ANGC. Without qualifying your opinion, I'm sure that some felt that you had been on site.It was ONLY after I asked you, directly, if you had ever been on site, that you qualified your opinion by stating that you had not.I for one, until you qualified your opinion, didn't know whether or not you had been on site. Lord knows, whether or not you've played the course is extremely relevant to a comment about how it comes off on TV.That wasn't the question.The question wasn't whether or not the ponds looked artificial on TV.The question was whether or not the ponds looked artificial.And then I had the temerity to clarify that I had not played it more than 24 LONG hours later. That's only because I challenged you to qualify your opinion.You NEVER volunteered that you had never been on site and only informed us of that fact AFTER I asked you directly.So, let's not pretend that you were candid with your opinion.This 24 hour window is key, because it allowed me to properly hoodwink those 'target readers' that I'm desperately hoping now believe I've played ANGC.The 24 hour window has nothing to do with chronology, rather, my response to your opinion which you failed to qualifyThank you for reminding me, a day after I'd made my clarification, that I should clarify this issue. I shouldn't have had to remind you.You, in the interest of intellectual honesty, should have volunteered that information when you rendered your opinion.That was necessary. We agreeYou saw through my plan to create a 2nd 24 hour 'target reader' window to engage in intellectual dishonesty on those readers that saw my original comment but missed my previous clarification.Me thinks that "Brutus doth protest too much"And, there was NO previous clarification.You never stated, prior to rendering your opinion, that you had never been on site, so don't try to cover up your failure to disclose a material fact.I'm now beginning to fully understand how to post here - I should prepare my post, then send it to you, Patrick, to insure that any possible intellectually dishonest inferences that I've slipped in can be weeded out by an objective party. The above sentence would indicate that you don't like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.It would indicate that despite your typed words that you're trying to weasel out of admitting that you should have clarified your opinion by stating that you had never set foot on ANGC and that your opinion was based solely on what you're seen on TV.Credibility is fact based and the more facts available, the greater one's credibility.Watching on TV and rendering an opinion, based upon select and limited camera angles is no substitute for on-site inspection.And, rendering an opinion, without qualifying that you've never been onsite, is misleading at best. \I sincerely apologize for thinking that I could engage in this discussion without meeting your requirements, on your schedule.Since when is honesty and disclosure my requirement ?I thought it was an inherent responsibility on all who post.In the future, please feel free to make it clear to all that any post of mine not pre-cleared by you is entirely invalid. Thank you for all your assistance, now and in the future.As I stated previously, it would seem that "Brutus doth protest too much"I asked you to "QUALIFY" your opinion since you failed to do so when you rendered it.Certainly you wouldn't want to mislead the readers by posturing that you had played and/or walked a golf course when in fact you never set foot on it.Since you've objected so strenuously to being asked to qualify your opinion, in the future, I will view your posts with a high degree of enlightened suspicion.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet.III ii 242"Et tu, Brutus?" - Julius CaesarIb. 82Both are Shakespeare. True and cited above"Brutus doth protest too much." - pure Mucci.True And, as usual, Garland offers his typical imput