Have Anonymous Posts Contributed Anything?

[Tim_Weiman]

From time to time the subject of anonymous posts comes up and we debate whether they should be permitted, naturally without coming to any definite conclusions. In light of several recent threads that the moderator was forced to delete, I’d like to approach this subject from a different angle:

Have anonymous posts actually contributed anything to our discussion?

More specifically:

Have we been enlightened about any specific golf courses due to anonymous posts?

Have we been enlightened about the work of any particular golf architect due to anonymous posts?

Have any points of view about “industry issues” come to light thanks to anonymous posts?

[John_Conley]

No.

[ForkaB]

Actually, "rpurd"s recent thread on Myopia and the Mass Mid-Am (which led to the most recent bout of GCA brow-knitting, navel-gazing and teeth-gnashing) was a polite and positive one which led to some good discussion of that great old course.  He didn't start the negativity on that one.

JakaBakaBarney has stimulated some good exchanges, although perhaps more when he was really anoymous rather than just titularly so.

I'm sure there have been others.

[David Wigler]

To many on this site JAKAB is anonymous and although sometimes goofey, he certainly has added to this site.  As well, Shooter is anonymous to many on this site (Because of Business Concerns) and I feel he has added.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich & David:

I'm not sure JakaB qualifies as anonymous, but that aside what I'm trying to get at is what golf architecture points of view have actually come to light as a result of anonymous posts?

That's where I'm having trouble. In theory, being able to be anonymous should bring more information to the table. But, does it really happen?

Again, what golf course, architect or industry issues have we learned about from anonymous posts? Haven't some of the most sensitive matters, e.g., the bunkers at Merion, come to light from people willing to put their name to posts?

[JakaB]

When you use a Port-O-Potty at a sporting event do your droppings on the already useless pile of crap beneath you have any more meaning if you scratch your name onto the stall wall....I never intended to teach anybody anything about architecture anymore than I ever intended to learn anything about a subject that is meaningless.   The problem with trying to find meaning from this site is that golf architecture does not even exist...its just an excuse to validate what you like or where you belong.   I would beg the question of what non-anonymous post has contributed anything to this ridiculous premise of "learning".   We might as well be showing and discussing pictures of our kids so someday we might create a smart good looking one with a well informed hip thrust.   Just don't let your ex marry Roger Rulewich...unless you want a well rounded kid that is..

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

May I suggest you start a thread "Have Non Anonymous Posts Contributed Anything?".

That might help maintain some focus.

[Michael Dugger]

When you use a Port-O-Potty at a sporting event do your droppings on the already useless pile of crap beneath you have any more meaning if you scratch your name onto the stall wall?

Quote of the year!!!

No, they don't contribute, anonymous posters generally annoy everyone.  

But, on the other hand, as someone pointed out earlier, for some it is unavoidable because of who they are.  I.E. Biz interests.  

It's an unavoidable problem.

[Tim_Weiman]

mdugger:

Business interests are most commonly cited as justification for permitting anonymous posts.

But, I'm hard pressed to recall many instances where interesting points of view have come to light from golf industry people posting anonymously?

Can you cite three examples?

[Bye]

Yes!

[Michael Dugger]

Tim,

Ok, I'll give it a try.  Someone earlier pointed to the character using the moniker "Shooter".  I have had a couple of very nice conversations with this gentleman about a number of things.  Whoever he is he knows about GCA.

Maybe you know who redanman or Shivas are but I do not.  It's obvious that they are GCA savvy having made good contributions to a # of threads.

Hmm, who else? I'm trying to think of other user names we've seen before.  I remember FACT PATROL on the ugly Sandpines thread.  That person was informed.

Fatbaldydrummer?
mothman?
That's the best I've got

[David Wigler]

Tim add Quassi and CharlestonBuckeye to the list.  There are a lot of knowledgeable posters who business forces to remain anonymous and a few quirky ones like Shivas.

[cary lichtenstein]

I don't see the point of either anonomoys posts. People should be proud of who they are and what they stand for. The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech and unlike China, they don't torture us here.

Alot of times I look up the profile of a poster and he gives no information. I would be in favor of having everyone list their real name along with their "handle" and at least a little info on their profile.

Maybe at the least, "WHo are you guys?" could be somehow cross linked with profiles, that way we have info that guys have volunteered, instead of trying to go back thru all those postings.

 

[Gary_Smith]

Yes!

I agree with this person, whomever he or she is. I've been here long enough to see some pretty good posts made by those who choose to remain anonymous. And no, I'm not going to cite three specific examples.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Bye:

Yes? That's it?

Didn't you understand that the whole point of the thread is to examine WHAT we have learned from anonymous posts?

MDugger:

I believe Redanman and Shivas have been well known to people on this site for quite some time.

As for Fact Patrol, I'm not really sure what we learned from him about Sandpines. The guy went toe-to-toe with Pat Mucci, but did he introduce anything about Sandpines that you or Tommy Naccarato or other people from the Northwest didn't already tell us?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

I would disagree.

I've learned a good deal about golf course architecture on this site, even from the likes of TEPaul.  

It has been, and will continue to be, the source of valueable information for me.

The extraction of information and the ability to learn are up to each viewer.

I would agree that there may be a tendency to promote what one likes and denegrate that which one doesn't like.
A form of BIAS if you will.  But, you can learn, even from BIASED points of view.

I have found evidence that GCA.com has resulted in a heightened sense of awareness with respect to how clubs view their golf courses and how they plan to proceed in managing them in the future.

I would like to see the creation of an elevated platform, available as a resource to club members, green committees, Boards and Superintendents, but that's up to Ran.

Now, if I could just get that 7th and 12th hole restored at GCGC I'd be ecstatic, and forever grateful to GCA.com.

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary Smith:

It is telling that you suggest we have had some "pretty good posts" from people who have posted anonymously, but don't want to cite three examples as evidence.

Let me make things easier: how about describing one thing you have learned about a specific course from a real anonymous poster?

If you want to substitute one point about an arhcitect or industry issue, feel free.

David Wigler:

Let me try one more time. I don't doubt there are people in the golf business who would have trouble posting under their own name. That is understood.

I'm not interested in the personalities. I'm after content, specific issues or points that have come to light from anonymous posts.

[Dan Kelly]

Bye:

Yes? That's it?

Didn't you understand that the whole point of the thread is to examine WHAT we have learned from anonymous posts?

Tim Weiman --

I do believe that "Bye" (who has said that he -- or, of course, she -- is an architect) is saying: I'VE made valuable posts.  

Perhaps you have the time to look at Bye's posts and see if you agree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The critical question is:

What's the ratio of bad to good posts from anonymous posters ?

[Gary_Smith]

Gary Smith:

It is telling that you suggest we have had some "pretty good posts" from people who have posted anonymously, but don't want to cite three examples as evidence.

Let me make things easier: how about describing one thing you have learned about a specific course from a real anonymous poster?

If you want to substitute one point about an arhcitect or industry issue, feel free.

Tim,

Correction, I seem to recall some DAMN good posts from people who have chosen to post anonymously. I do not carry them around in my head as I have much more IMPORTANT things to worry about or retain. I am absolutely positive I could go back in the archives and find some good anonymous posts that have been made, but I'm not going to take the time to do so.

I'm guessing your reply will be that those "damn good posts" maybe weren't so damned good as they are not seared upon my consciousness available for instant recall.    

[John_Conley]

JakaB has posted his name and number, although it did take him a long time to do it.  Shivas is a moniker for Dave Schmidt.  Haven't met him, but I don't consider him anonymous as I could probably get in touch with him if I tried.  Redanman is Bill Vostinak (I think), and I don't remember him hiding from anyone.

I don't consider anonymity when a guy replies to a private message or tries to contact people on the board.

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary:

I'll leave you in peace!

Dan Kelly:

I agree with you. Presumably, Bye believes he has contributed something by posting anonymously. But, if so, why not give some examples?

I'm being upfront suggesting I can't recall anything. That's why I tried to break it down into managable chunks and specifically asked about a course, architect or industry issues where we have learned something from anonymous posts.

Pat Mucci:

I understand your point, but if you don't mind I'd just like to stick to an inquiry of "good" anonymous posts. Do you recall many? Any? If anonymous posts have been so valuable - the so called "good" ones - why haven't people listed not one , not three, but ten examples?

[Bye]

Bye:

Yes? That's it?

Didn't you understand that the whole point of the thread is to examine WHAT we have learned from anonymous posts?

Gee, I thought I answered your question!

I am an architect, I have worked for big and small shops. I chose to remain anonymous to offer more insight. But some have said I snipe at other architects.

[Srgt._Shanks]

You're Goddamn right it has, Private Snowball!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I said this a long time ago: that I didn't have a problem with Bye, wanting to conceal his identity, just as long as he continued to particpate. In fact I defended him on it.

My only problem with Bye begin when he "sniped" at architects and doing it under a psuedo. I think that its still wrong and it took away a lot of credibility from him for doing it. (At least for me, and that wouldn't matter to him)

But Tim has a point to all of this, and I hope everyone reads further into it.