Here is one for you Garland: you're really shitty at this.
- Jim attacked me personally for, apparently, saying Doak should't get the Sheep Ranch re-design (ANGRY) and did so by using lines in my signature he attributed to me (UNINFORMED); therefore addressing what he said.
- Kalen jumped in, echoed Jim, and then said something about Doak not having anything to prove to anyone (which I never said he did) and that I was taking cheap shots at Doak (for stating Bandon differentiates itself for, among other reasons, having all of their courses in the Top 100 and Doak hadn't produced a solo design in the Top 100 since Pac Dunes (go ahead and take a look at the rankings I referenced)). Hard to read what I said as either a) Doak having anything to prove or b) my comments as cheap shots.
Now you jump in and claim I made ad hominem arguments against the editors of Golf and Golfweek. First, that's not possible because I'm not in a discussion/disagreement with them. Second, let's say hypothetically I was, OM and BT not being in the Golf World 100 is a fact and Golf US Top 100 having too much Raynor in it to be taken seriously is an opinion of the ranking, not a personal attack. Lastly, the rater dues paid by Golfweek raters were used to pay for Brad Klein's travel; another fact.
So, the best part of all of it is that you defined ad hominem in your post and still didn't apply it correctly. Like I said, reading is hard.
Oh, and I'd bring whatever it is you do for a living into this but I don't know what you do for a living because I'm not a weirdo who keeps tabs on people on the internet with whom I've never had any interaction.
And, apparently, you suck at golf.