Stamp out logorrhea on GCA

[Rick Shefchik]

I don't know if Brad is referring to threads like the "Rules Question" discussion that Rich started a few days ago, but -- even though it was non-architectural -- I found it extremely interesting and informative, and fortunately, some of the better-informed participants in this discussion group did, too. I learned something useful and was able to satisfy my curiosity about why the rule exists and what it's practical applications are.

Yes, it would have been more appropirate on another forum -- but I don't know that it would have come up or been nearly as thoroughly examined in another forum.

Now the thread is gone. Others with far less intellectual content -- in my opinion -- are still here. I don't see this as a net improvement of this site.

[Mike Erdmann]

Thanks Brad for saying what I, and others, have felt for some time now.  I used to check in with this website much more frequently in the past when the content of the posts was much more directly related to golf architecture.  Over the recent months, certain users have more and more treated this site like their own personal chatroom.  I know they value the friendships they've created, but it is to the detriment of the website.  As time goes by, fewer industry insiders post to the site, and their valuable content is drowned out by others insistent on chatting about non architecture-related subjects.

[Scott_Burroughs]

....dates way back at the beginning of the internet.....

 you mean the widely available, more universal part, from the mid-90's, not the actual beginning of www, which was started back in (I believe) the late 60's or early 70's by the government (or was it academia?).

I know I used to play a golf game over this version in the early 80's from home through my stepfather's account as a professor (via the old-fashioned dial phone modem).  Remember the movie War Games in 1983?  Despite being a fictional movie, he used the same old-fashioned phone modem to hook into the school district's system and then, of course, NORAD's WOPR.

when Brad was the moderator and host of igolf's weekly chat and discussion groups. They were the beginnings of Golf Architecture on the Internet, and a pioneer for this site as well as many others.

 Chip Royce, a sometimes poster here also was a weekly moderator on igolf.  They are both consistent in that both have kept their same AOL e-mail handles from back then, igolfbadly and igolfchip.

[paul cowley]

...i have at times mentally voiced the expression 'somtimes wimin be talkin to much'  ...but i've learned to launch into a speed reading mode.

...i also wonder a times what a full frontal conversation with some would be like......

...i'm also amazed at the very potent [and impotent ]pondering of some here...but ,hell,i still type with two fingers[this post took over five minutes].

...great site though......

[Michael Whitaker]

The answer to your "off topic" problem is built into the software used to operate this discussion board (YaBB SE). It is a very simple procedure to create multiple forums, thereby segregating the "on-topic" and "off-topic" threads. Wouldn't that make you happy?

[kwl]

"The answer to your "off topic" problem is built into the software used to operate this discussion board (YaBB SE). It is a very simple procedure to create multiple forums, thereby segregating the "on-topic" and "off-topic" threads. Wouldn't that make you happy?"

Quoting Dennis Paulson..."that's what i'm talkin' about!"

[Marty Bonnar]

Sorry but...the phrase 'stamping out logorrhea' reminds me too much of the time I trod in a dog turd at Muirfield. Did I  ever tell you about that.....?

 
FBD.

[Michael Whitaker]

FBD - At least it wasn't this Cockhound...

[Marty Bonnar]

Crikey Mike,
If I had a £ for every time I've walked along that wee bit o' road or stood behind that wee dyke on the left during an historic day, why I'd have about £20!!!!
Seriously(ish), isn't it cool how an otherwise innocuous photo of somewhere with 'meaning' for you can get the 'golf juices' flowing (there I go again getting all scatological!!!)

FBD.

[redanman]

If we can be just a little bit serious about this logorrhea business (a real word, BTW) I would make a plea for shorter, more concise well-thought out posts.

Brevity gentlemen, brevity.  We are mostly really not all that important here.  Passionate, but really not that important.  If you really are important, publish it and we'll buy it if you are.

Big emphasis on shorter, Brad Klein gave us all a bit of very good advice, we should take it.

[Marty Bonnar]

I would agree about 97.875% with you, Redanman, but I also believe that the perfect bedfellow for Brevity is, well, Levity. We are discussing a GAME on this DG - NOT World Poverty, War, Famine, Religion (nearly), insert other REAL issue here.
A GAME which we all are utterly, and rather strangely, passionate about, but a GAME nonetheless. May it never take the place of a real issue.

A serious (for about a millisecond) FBD.

[redanman]

Don't misunderstand me Martin, please.  I am mr irreverant, the ultimate jokester.

I must have ADD though.  Very little I ever read of anything that is very long really tells me more than something short and well-edited.  The best thing a writer can have is a good editor.  The New York Times (But I loathe USAToday  ) could use some good editors.  If I couldn't skim I'd never read the damn thing, I get too bored.

I always liked John Cheever best because he wrote more in a page than most authors in a chapter.  That's good writing to me.  Mike Cirba is the John Cheever of GCA. With all due respect to my good friend TEP, he could use a damn editor(!)  and he knows it.

We'll tip a few someday, OK?  Just let me know when you're to be over here and vive versa.

[Norbert P]

Ach! We've been Kleinhammered!  

 It's good to get the ol' bell rung for clarity.


"Praise be to the distant sister sun,
    joyful as the silver planets run.
 Seven maids move in seven time.
 Sing the song the bells call, loudly chiming.
    Ring out those bells
    Ring out, ring solstice bells..."  IA  

 

[Scratch_Nathan]

Like my sixth grade english teacher, Dr. Elliot Tokson, taught me..."All good writing is re-writing."

When the GCA writing is excellent, self-edited, providing interesting perspective and/or new learning, and on a topic I care about, I don't really care how long it is.  The thirst for good rhetoric and conversation about golf architecture created the passion that drives this great site (3 posts or 18 posts from good writers on a topic are welcomed by me, so I therefore would vote "no" on the 3-hour rule).   I wouldn't want to discourage anything from folks who can flex their brains and keyboards.

We can always flip past the channels with programming we don't like, or is off topic.  It would be great if every thread was filled with compelling, well-edited prose, but that's an unrealistic expectation because self-regulating discipline is rare in an open forum and great writing is an extraordinary and rare talent.  

I commend Bradley for reminding everyone to make best efforts to communicate clearly, stay on topic and self-edit.  

Perhaps if you suffer from Logorrhea, you need to visit the doctor.  Unfortunately, Dr. Tokson is no longer available.  He passed away long ago.

[Michael Moore]

Amen, Brother Klein!

Thus, I will refrain from starting my "Stupid George Thomas Yale Aerial of the Day #1" thread.

[Brad Klein]

In the spriit of good (re)writing and the aforementioned late Dr. Elliot Tokson, I'll be teaching a 4-hour seminar on "non-technical writing for superintendents" at the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America annual convention in San Diego in Feb. 2004. My class will be held Thursday, Feb. 13, 7-11 a.m. and consist of a PowerPoint presentation, writing exercises and discussion.

In an effort to promote effective communication, we'll look at good and bad writing, the history of golf writing, and the changing structure of golf journalism and communication.

Registration is through GCSAA.

[Dan Kelly]

7-11 a.m....

Four hours? Yikes!

I bet you could edit it down to two!

Oh, well....

[mark chalfant]

  Brad,

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post.


 unfortunately, it seems emotions have supplanted reflection in
the past few months.


anyway thanks for bringing this up.

I  echo your sentiments,

  Mark

[redanman]

It has returned on the ground game thread.

Unreadable, unfollowable, uninteresting.

Poor premise, poor posting, excellent pissing and breath holding.

0*   (no stars)

[Patrick_Mucci]

redanman,

In reviewing the last seven (7) pages of threads,
I noticed that you only started one post,
which asked what golfers put in their flasks, in their golf bag.

Rather then be critical of posts about architecture, why don't you create some interesting posts of your own that deal with architecture rather than non-architectural related topics ?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

He does have a point Bill.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

You're take on the uselessness of what you call Pat Mucci's "ground game" thread is to me wholly wrong. Matter of fact, the point he may be making and those that are counterpointing him is one of the real fundamentals to all that we concentrate on in the website. If you don't have the inclination, the time or the interest to read it that's your problem and not the problem of this website.

Unfortunately, it's just not enough to have anyone just state, as you have, that the ground game should exist--it's completely necessary to state why and in detail as well as why Pat Mucci is both wrong and off-base stating what he has been on that thread. Otherwise there is no real understanding on this fundamental point!

That thread is long and wordy but it is valuable to all we concentrate on here---really valuable!

Sorry about this post to you--I don't mean to be confrontational or adverserial but this point really does need to be made, in my opinion. Otherwise, all this site tends to be is a bunch of pithy little remarks of a few lines that don't say much and are the type of thing that no one learns much from!

[redanman]

He does have a point Bill.

Thanks, Tom.

How about another thread on mini golf nonsense?

I've never been a thread starter, show me where I have been?  I do find many of Pat's multiple threads to be poorly directed and unclear (witness the restoration-Holy Grail posit) , Tom Paul's threads wordy, repetitive and ultimately pedantic and unreadable, and Tommy's opinions often embarassingly biased if we're slinging mud.  

But I am trying to point out the endless drivel that goes on and on with no progress by pointing out those poorly written threads and posts.

There's a lot of "Can't see the forest for the trees" going on in threads lately.  Focusing on hair-splitting that for practical purposes are irrelevant.  

The focus of this board is what has gone astray. I have suggested otherwise... elsewhere... actually started a thread!

[frank_D]

dear brother klein

NUTS !

respectfully

frank D

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Although I will now try to tighten up my posts for brevity as well as clarity why don't you just do yourself a favor in the future and not read my posts.

I read yours sometimes, sometimes I don't but I must admit the ones I do read are brief at least but I can't say they tell me a single thing that really means much except what your opinion is with almost zero reason why. You post things like ten words that you think most all trees on golf courses should be cut down, the ground game should function etc.

DUH! That's pretty much a general consensus on here anyway but wouldn't it be better to sometimes explain why you say things or even explain why in detail? Don't you think perhaps that might be more interesting to viewers and contributors?

Otherwise this site will get down to threads that state something followed by a series of posts like yours that say not much more than;

"I agree"

"I don"t"

"I don't care"

"I care"

"Tiger's embarrassing to watch"

"Davis Love's a wimp"

"I agree"

"Cut them all down"

That's not the kind of website I want this one to turn into--that isn't interesting--and no one learns a thing that I can see.