how did this group get ruined?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 11 Nov 2006 00:45:35
From: pete z
Subject: how did this group get ruined?

I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
good. Mike, JeffC and others who
have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
thanks, and good luck.
Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
ridiculous.

To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
of you fools, get a frigging life.

Pete Z

Date: 11 Nov 2006 10:59:14
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:52:31
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

How long does it take to ingore threads that have no interst to you?
I read using pine on a unix machine so it takes no time to find
the threads which might interest me. I wish the threads weren't
there, I've seen the same thing on other newsgroups. Like the
other poster said, it's best to wait it out, not give up.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Watson deMeneux wrote:

> Cal Golfer wrote:
>> The world is full of lonely people with no one to listen to their
>> rambling thoughts on a variety of topics. And 1-2 dozen of them have
>> found this newsgroup.
>>
>
> It's helpful to think of RSG as the lounge at your favourite golf course. The
> room will be full of real golfers, occasional triflers, once-a-year players,
> morons, geniuses, the knowledgeable and the daft.
>
> Conversations will range from "I hit that 1 iron off the deck..." to "Goerge
> Bush is an idiot..."
>
> The nice thing about usenet is that you don't have to "listen" to the
> conversations you don't like. Just scroll past 'em and find a nugget thread.
> Of course, when the room is full of thirteen year olds, it's tough to find an
> intelligent conversation. But there are a few here and there.
>
> --
> Watson deMeneux
> -Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.
>

Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:35:40
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

pete z wrote:
> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> thanks, and good luck.
> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> ridiculous.
>
> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
> Pete Z
>

Pete, I'm sad that it's come to this. Truth is, I look at RSG less and
less these days. It's seems to be little more than people shouting at
each other, with no one listening. It used to be that RSG was about
golf. Now it seems to be about egos.

Once upon a time, people recognized that the right to swing one's fist
stopped at another's nose. Further, it used to be the case that people
were careful in how they waved their arms around, out of concern for
accidentally popping someone in the beak.

That is, they thought about others before they thought of themselves.

That no longer seems to be the case.

American society--and I'm sure you've noted how little of this is
promulgated by people outside the US--has in many ways become a
me-first, selfish type of society. Not everyone is this way, of course,
but it only takes some to do this. And if no one objects, then the
boorish behavior of a few becomes the norm. And lord knows, that's what
RSG is now.

It is too bad that there are those who lack to maturity to understand
the need for norms, the wisdom to recognize what is appropriate and what
is not, and the self-control to curb their impulses.

RSG is dead. As one former RSG'er commented, it's become
Rec.Sport.Government.

It used to be a place where friendships were formed by people who had
something in common--their love of golf. That common interest gave rise
to RSG gatherings, and the ability to meet, in person, those with whom
one had formed a long-distance friendship.

That place, it would appear, is no more.

That's unfortunate, of course. I got a lot out of RSG back when it was
about golf. It helped honed my love of golf, and taught me many things
that helped with my improvement. I learned about the mental game (Randy
Brown put me on to Rotella's book), about chipping (thanks, Bruce
Newman), and about the swing (thanks, David Laville).

But now, that's all gone. Instead of posting about what unites us--our
love of golf--people seem compelled to post about what divides us.

And that's a shame.

It seems as if there are those who are bent on destroying what RSG once
was, who place their political positions on an altar, to which they
demand others pay homage. Of course, in any religious discussion--which
is what this is--everybody believes what they believe, and nobody has
their opinion changed.

Some say this is just normal for what is known as the silly season, but
in truth, this started far in advance of that. It is intentional,
initiated and maintained by people who place themselves ahead of the
group, and who pick fights just to give themselves a forum from which
they can spout their views.

But in their immoderation, they reveal themselves for what they are.

There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
golfers leave, who is left?

I'm a member of a number of mailing lists, many of which were formed and
populated by RSG'ers and former RSG'ers. The vast majority of those
people--numbering several dozen--have given up on RSG. In other words,
those who are insisting that RSG be like a 19th hole are pushing away
people who came for the golf. Ironic, isn't it?

One final thing: I said, a few years back, that circumstances
surrounding RSG were reflective of what is known as the Broken Windows
theory. I argued that OT and SPAM would destroy the group's utility
w/r/t golf. I was vilified by some for that view, but in the end, I've
been proven right.

I sure wish I'd been wrong about that.

Mike

Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:05:21
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:

> There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
> something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
> golfers leave, who is left?

Yes this group is like the 19th hole - trouble is these days, very few
are bothering to play the first 18.

Good post, Mike.

David

Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:49:34
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:01:47
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > writes:

> David Sneddon wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >
> >> There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
> >> something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
> >> golfers leave, who is left?
> > Yes this group is like the 19th hole - trouble is these days, very
> > few are bothering to play the first 18.
>
> This was what I was trying to say, David, but the words eluded me.
>
> You nailed it.

Your words were fine, Mike (as were David's).

Consider David's herritage; he's just stingy -- even
with words.

--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:53:59
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:35:40 -0600, Mike Dalecki
<mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

>pete z wrote:
>> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
>> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
>> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
>> thanks, and good luck.
>> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
>> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>>
>> Pete Z
>>
>
>Pete, I'm sad that it's come to this. Truth is, I look at RSG less and
>less these days. It's seems to be little more than people shouting at
>each other, with no one listening. It used to be that RSG was about
>golf. Now it seems to be about egos.
>
>Once upon a time, people recognized that the right to swing one's fist
>stopped at another's nose. Further, it used to be the case that people
>were careful in how they waved their arms around, out of concern for
>accidentally popping someone in the beak.
>
>That is, they thought about others before they thought of themselves.
>
>That no longer seems to be the case.
>
>American society--and I'm sure you've noted how little of this is
>promulgated by people outside the US--has in many ways become a
>me-first, selfish type of society. Not everyone is this way, of course,
>but it only takes some to do this. And if no one objects, then the
>boorish behavior of a few becomes the norm. And lord knows, that's what
>RSG is now.
>
>It is too bad that there are those who lack to maturity to understand
>the need for norms, the wisdom to recognize what is appropriate and what
>is not, and the self-control to curb their impulses.
>
>RSG is dead. As one former RSG'er commented, it's become
>Rec.Sport.Government.

You almost got it right. It has become Rec.Sport.Government.USA
>
>It used to be a place where friendships were formed by people who had
>something in common--their love of golf. That common interest gave rise
>to RSG gatherings, and the ability to meet, in person, those with whom
>one had formed a long-distance friendship.
>
>That place, it would appear, is no more.
>
>That's unfortunate, of course. I got a lot out of RSG back when it was
>about golf. It helped honed my love of golf, and taught me many things
>that helped with my improvement. I learned about the mental game (Randy
>Brown put me on to Rotella's book), about chipping (thanks, Bruce
>Newman), and about the swing (thanks, David Laville).

I miss Newman and the Rev. and the Aussie bunch who used to post with
a lot greater frequency.
>
>But now, that's all gone. Instead of posting about what unites us--our
>love of golf--people seem compelled to post about what divides us.
>
>And that's a shame.
>
>It seems as if there are those who are bent on destroying what RSG once
>was, who place their political positions on an altar, to which they
>demand others pay homage. Of course, in any religious discussion--which
>is what this is--everybody believes what they believe, and nobody has
>their opinion changed.
>
>Some say this is just normal for what is known as the silly season, but
>in truth, this started far in advance of that. It is intentional,
>initiated and maintained by people who place themselves ahead of the
>group, and who pick fights just to give themselves a forum from which
>they can spout their views.
>
>But in their immoderation, they reveal themselves for what they are.
>
>There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
>something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
>golfers leave, who is left?
>
>I'm a member of a number of mailing lists, many of which were formed and
>populated by RSG'ers and former RSG'ers. The vast majority of those
>people--numbering several dozen--have given up on RSG. In other words,
>those who are insisting that RSG be like a 19th hole are pushing away
>people who came for the golf. Ironic, isn't it?
>
>One final thing: I said, a few years back, that circumstances
>surrounding RSG were reflective of what is known as the Broken Windows
>theory. I argued that OT and SPAM would destroy the group's utility
>w/r/t golf. I was vilified by some for that view, but in the end, I've
>been proven right.
>
>I sure wish I'd been wrong about that.

Me too.

I drop by very infrequently now and scroll through the tons of crap
most of which is about American politics a subject that I just don't
give a shit about.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:02:43
From: Plat
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
><snipped
> RSG is dead. As one former RSG'er commented, it's become
> Rec.Sport.Government.
>
> It used to be a place where friendships were formed by people who had
> something in common--their love of golf. That common interest gave rise
> to RSG gatherings, and the ability to meet, in person, those with whom
> one had formed a long-distance friendship.

Great post, Mike. When I first came to RSG 2 1/2 years ago, I enjoyed
posting/reading about golf, particularly health issues related to golf.
There are some really nice people on here who I occasionally email
off-line.

It's very sad to see the direction this newsgroup has taken. I'd
actually be interested in learning about some of the mailing lists.
Wading through all of the vitriol on this group is just plain tiresome
sometimes.

Plat

Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:20:28
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:02:43 GMT, Plat <platysma@earthlink.net > wrote:

>Mike Dalecki wrote:
>><snipped
>> RSG is dead. As one former RSG'er commented, it's become
>> Rec.Sport.Government.
>>
>> It used to be a place where friendships were formed by people who had
>> something in common--their love of golf. That common interest gave rise
>> to RSG gatherings, and the ability to meet, in person, those with whom
>> one had formed a long-distance friendship.
>
>Great post, Mike. When I first came to RSG 2 1/2 years ago, I enjoyed
>posting/reading about golf, particularly health issues related to golf.
>There are some really nice people on here who I occasionally email
>off-line.
>
>It's very sad to see the direction this newsgroup has taken. I'd
>actually be interested in learning about some of the mailing lists.
>Wading through all of the vitriol on this group is just plain tiresome
>sometimes.

No shit. I think that I have posted more today than I have in months
just because it finally got to me all the BS and Turd(s) that float
around this bowl. Been a subscriber to this group for over 8 years and
the last couple of years it takes less and less time to read the golf
content. I know I don't have to subscribe I can leave and not many
would care but part of me wants to hang around and be an asshole just
like the rest. Maybe I'll create a dozen aliases and start in on the
political discussions with the intent of seeing if we can't really
piss someone off.... even if the person is a sock puppet.

I

Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:06:03
From: Cal Golfer
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

The world is full of lonely people with no one to listen to their
rambling thoughts on a variety of topics. And 1-2 dozen of them have
found this newsgroup.

pete z wrote:
> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> thanks, and good luck.
> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> ridiculous.
>
> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
> Pete Z

Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:39:39
From: Watson deMeneux
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Cal Golfer wrote:
> The world is full of lonely people with no one to listen to their
> rambling thoughts on a variety of topics. And 1-2 dozen of them have
> found this newsgroup.
>

It's helpful to think of RSG as the lounge at your favourite golf
course. The room will be full of real golfers, occasional triflers,
once-a-year players, morons, geniuses, the knowledgeable and the daft.

Conversations will range from "I hit that 1 iron off the deck..." to
"Goerge Bush is an idiot..."

The nice thing about usenet is that you don't have to "listen" to the
conversations you don't like. Just scroll past 'em and find a nugget
thread. Of course, when the room is full of thirteen year olds, it's
tough to find an intelligent conversation. But there are a few here and
there.

--
Watson deMeneux
-Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 05:47:38
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Bert Robbins wrote:
> pete z wrote:
> > I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> > good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> > have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> > thanks, and good luck.
> > Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> > ridiculous.
> >
> > To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> > of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
> Give it a couple of weeks and it should settle back into the off-season
> bickering about rules, swing mechanics and other trivial crap.

Sorry Bert, I must disagree. The group of regulars that keep all the OT
shit going aren't about to stop. Then, ErictheLiar will return, he's
due, and start all his sick shit. This IS rsg.
You can get golf info anywhere, you can't get the rsg style crap
anywhere but here.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 21:17:54
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> pete z wrote:
>>> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
>>> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
>>> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
>>> thanks, and good luck.
>>> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
>>> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>> Give it a couple of weeks and it should settle back into the off-season
>> bickering about rules, swing mechanics and other trivial crap.
>
> Sorry Bert, I must disagree. The group of regulars that keep all the OT
> shit going aren't about to stop. Then, ErictheLiar will return, he's
> due, and start all his sick shit. This IS rsg.
> You can get golf info anywhere, you can't get the rsg style crap
> anywhere but here.
>

I hit 12 of 14 fairways today it was a great day on the course.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:45:43
From: Michel Oui
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Bert Robbins wrote:
>
> I hit 12 of 14 fairways today it was a great day on the course.

That's great Bert, but... if I tee off with a 5 iron I would
likely hit 14 of 14 fairways. How far did you hit 'em and how
many GIRs did you have?

Date: 12 Nov 2006 12:57:55
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Michel Oui wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>
>> I hit 12 of 14 fairways today it was a great day on the course.
>
> That's great Bert, but... if I tee off with a 5 iron I would
> likely hit 14 of 14 fairways. How far did you hit 'em and how
> many GIRs did you have?

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

We are talking about hitting 12 out of 14 fairways with my driver. I was
hitting them 190 to 220 which is good for me. I have an active member of
this group as a witness.

For this round of golf I was focusing on the hitting fairways and 100
yards in. I was successful with hitting fairways and I was ok with 100
yards in. My putting stunk. But, through it all I managed to net a 72
for an 18 hole round.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:52:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Start the conversations you like, filter the ones you don't like.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:02:17
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:08:52
From: Biggie Largarino
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:02:17 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>pete z wrote:
>> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
>> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
>> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
>> thanks, and good luck.
>> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
>> ridiculous.
>>
>> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
>> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
>Give it a couple of weeks and it should settle back into the off-season
>bickering about rules, swing mechanics and other trivial crap.
>

You are one of the worst offenders, shit for brains.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:36:34
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
> A decent report. When a certain group of people decided they had to enforce
> their view of the world here following RAG Atlanta 1, this gruop started to
> decline. The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
> by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
> most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
> shafts! I personally post little to no golf here...if it's going to be
> confrontation and domination, may as well stick with politics!

Well said, Rob. A well organized clique/mailing list has contributed
to RSG's perceived decline. However, I'm glad they exist. Many of
petty participants have quit RSG, choosing to solely interact with like
minded individuals.....and that's a good thing.

Having said this, I don't want to fully demonize the cliques. RSG has
a unique feature uncommon to most newsgroups....many of the
participants have personally met each other, and so it has become
natural for these friendships to grow, organize, and inadvertantly (or
in my case, purposely) exclude. Had various RSG outings not occured,
then you would see a different dynamic here.

Solution.....tolerance, starting with modifying or ignoring the
charter. Why does RSG have to be solely about golf? Why can't it be a
19th hole, where guys/gals routinely discuss their golf games along
with a host of other subjects? Right now, most yankees can't play dry
golf, so what's wrong with politics, football, and Anni's fetishes?

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:57:16
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On 11 Nov 2006 22:36:34 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>
>Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> A decent report. When a certain group of people decided they had to enforce
>> their view of the world here following RAG Atlanta 1, this gruop started to
>> decline. The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
>> by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
>> most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
>> shafts! I personally post little to no golf here...if it's going to be
>> confrontation and domination, may as well stick with politics!
>
>Well said, Rob. A well organized clique/mailing list has contributed
>to RSG's perceived decline. However, I'm glad they exist. Many of
>petty participants have quit RSG, choosing to solely interact with like
>minded individuals.....and that's a good thing.
>
>Having said this, I don't want to fully demonize the cliques. RSG has
>a unique feature uncommon to most newsgroups....many of the
>participants have personally met each other, and so it has become
>natural for these friendships to grow, organize, and inadvertantly (or
>in my case, purposely) exclude. Had various RSG outings not occured,
>then you would see a different dynamic here.
>
>Solution.....tolerance, starting with modifying or ignoring the
>charter. Why does RSG have to be solely about golf? Why can't it be a
>19th hole, where guys/gals routinely discuss their golf games along
>with a host of other subjects? Right now, most yankees can't play dry
>golf, so what's wrong with politics, football, and Anni's fetishes?
>

Ok great. So what do you think Harper's next move will be? Do you
think that he has the ability to win a majority or do you think that
the Liberal party will find a leader who will take him down?

How about them LIons. Gotta believe that they will take the green
'Riders move on to the Grey Cup. Who do you like coming out of the
east?

Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:42:02
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

A decent report. When a certain group of people decided they had to enforce
their view of the world here following RAG Atlanta 1, this gruop started to
decline. The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
shafts! I personally post little to no golf here...if it's going to be
confrontation and domination, may as well stick with politics!

Date: 12 Nov 2006 07:29:46
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45564FD1.212ED3CE@att.net...

The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
> by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
> most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
> shafts!

What's wrong with TT lite XL shafts? I may be a lame ass golfer, but I'm
not a lame ass part time golfer. By the price tag, I know that Dynamic
Golds should be better. I just can't tell by swinging the clubs I built
with XL's vs. the ones I bought with Dynamic Golds. Just don't see the
difference in actual use, but maybe that's because the XL clubheads are so
much nicer.

Personally I think golfers are the biggest bunch of price chumps there ever
was. Does anyone really think they'll get $425 worth of wow out of a Ping
Rapture? A really good golfer could get serious performance out of a piece
of junk Dunlop off the rack at Walmart. So please tell me why I should pay
2x, 3x, or even 4x over the price of XL's? Will I play 2x, 3x, or 4x better
golf based on the shaft alone? Yea, I know, the shaft is the engine. The
engine is stainless steel tubing. Some of that tubing is special, I guess.

I'd not be surprised if the high-dollar iron shafts play better. I would
be surprised if they play several times better. I'd guess your average
golfer might even fail the Pepsi shaft challenge.

Scott

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:32:31
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

S McFarlane wrote:

> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
> news:45564FD1.212ED3CE@att.net...
>
> The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
> > by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
> > most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
> > shafts!
>
> What's wrong with TT lite XL shafts? I may be a lame ass golfer, but I'm
> not a lame ass part time golfer. By the price tag, I know that Dynamic
> Golds should be better. I just can't tell by swinging the clubs I built
> with XL's vs. the ones I bought with Dynamic Golds. Just don't see the
> difference in actual use, but maybe that's because the XL clubheads are so
> much nicer.
>
> Personally I think golfers are the biggest bunch of price chumps there ever
> was. Does anyone really think they'll get $425 worth of wow out of a Ping
> Rapture? A really good golfer could get serious performance out of a piece
> of junk Dunlop off the rack at Walmart. So please tell me why I should pay
> 2x, 3x, or even 4x over the price of XL's? Will I play 2x, 3x, or 4x better
> golf based on the shaft alone? Yea, I know, the shaft is the engine. The
> engine is stainless steel tubing. Some of that tubing is special, I guess.
>
> I'd not be surprised if the high-dollar iron shafts play better. I would
> be surprised if they play several times better. I'd guess your average
> golfer might even fail the Pepsi shaft challenge.
>
> Scott

Just hearsay in my case, but I've heard it many, many times. TT has had 2 basic
pricepoints for shafts. Right now, about 7 bucks and 14 bucks per shaft. The
difference is that the only real QC they do on the shafts they get in from the
manufacturer is weight sorting...or so I've heard, mant times. The ones that
pass are the 12 buck shafts, the ones that fail are the 7 buck shafts. Dynamics
and Dynamic Golds. Same shafts, same specs; only difference it the DGs pass the
QC, the D's didn't. If true (and I beleive it to be true, FWIW), you can't make
a D into a DG with freq. matching, odd tip trimming or whatever, it is in fact
out of spec for a DG, it was too heavy or too light to be a DG for whatever
reason, and you really can't make up for it!

So you get clubs with 30+ buck clubheads and you "save" 5-7 bucks per shaft
going with the cheaper shaft...and pay for freq. matching and the rest, vs you
just put in the "better" shaft...what's the "better" strategy? Now if the clubs
had 5 buck heads...another matter....maybe.

FWIW, I paid 28 bucks for the entire set of clubheads I have,. I have
inexpensive..but great, Star Grips...and expensive DGSL shafts. Four of the
shafts cost more than the the entire sert of clubheads and grips in my irons!

I am totally biased against OEMS, especially the likes of Pings. They enforcre
overpricing, which is fine, they have that right, but you are a chump to buy
their products, IMHO...but that too is your right!

Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:56:19
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:29:46 +0000, S McFarlane wrote:

> What's wrong with TT lite XL shafts? I may be a lame ass golfer, but
> I'm not a lame ass part time golfer. By the price tag, I know that
> Dynamic Golds should be better. I just can't tell by swinging the clubs
> I built with XL's vs. the ones I bought with Dynamic Golds. Just don't
> see the difference in actual use, but maybe that's because the XL
> clubheads are so much nicer.
>
> Personally I think golfers are the biggest bunch of price chumps there
> ever was. Does anyone really think they'll get $425 worth of wow out of
> a Ping Rapture? A really good golfer could get serious performance out
> of a piece of junk Dunlop off the rack at Walmart. So please tell me
> why I should pay 2x, 3x, or even 4x over the price of XL's? Will I play
> 2x, 3x, or 4x better golf based on the shaft alone? Yea, I know, the
> shaft is the engine. The engine is stainless steel tubing. Some of
> that tubing is special, I guess.
>
> I'd not be surprised if the high-dollar iron shafts play better. I
> would be surprised if they play several times better. I'd guess your
> average golfer might even fail the Pepsi shaft challenge.

OMG Golf Content!! My favorite steel shafts ever were the ZZ-Lites that
came with my old Ping Eye2 fairway woods. They were absolutely effortless
to hit. To me anyway they felt lighter and hit the ball higher than DG's.
Anyone who has ever hit those clubs has been surprised at how friendly
those clubs were to use. Anyway, the ZZ-Lite is an OEM version of the TT
Lite XL. I had some rescue clubs built last spring, and I ordered them
with TT Lites.

The other thing, there's hardly any difference in price between TT Lites
and Dynamic Golds. You're looking at what, $6/shaft? They're both cheap as
dirt.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:31:01
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.12.13.55.51.59832@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> The other thing, there's hardly any difference in price between TT Lites
> and Dynamic Golds. You're looking at what, $6/shaft? They're both cheap as
> dirt.

Dynamic Golds (Lite) are more like $10/shaft. Off the cuff, I thought they
were more like $12, so there's not as much difference in price as I thought.
Maybe one day I'll reshaft an iron with those and do a comparison. Who
knows, maybe the extra expense is worth it.

Scott

Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:24:00
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

S McFarlane wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.11.12.13.55.51.59832@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>The other thing, there's hardly any difference in price between TT Lites
>>and Dynamic Golds. You're looking at what, $6/shaft? They're both cheap as
>>dirt.
>
>
> Dynamic Golds (Lite) are more like $10/shaft. Off the cuff, I thought they
> were more like $12, so there's not as much difference in price as I thought.
> Maybe one day I'll reshaft an iron with those and do a comparison. Who
> knows, maybe the extra expense is worth it.
>
> Scott

I'm playing the TTDG SL S300 shafts in my irons - they weigh in around
105grams in comparison to the TTDG S300's at 125-130grams. Quite a
noticeable difference.

If found that these shafts produce the same trajectory and
characteristics of the TTDG's except that, at outset, they seem to play
stiffer. The do take a bit of getting used to, as far as 'feel' goes,
at least they did with me.

Not sure of the price, but they are more than the TTDG's.

I like them.

David

Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:58:03
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:24:00 -0500, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net >
wrote:

>S McFarlane wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.11.12.13.55.51.59832@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>>The other thing, there's hardly any difference in price between TT Lites
>>>and Dynamic Golds. You're looking at what, $6/shaft? They're both cheap as
>>>dirt.
>>
>>
>> Dynamic Golds (Lite) are more like $10/shaft. Off the cuff, I thought they
>> were more like $12, so there's not as much difference in price as I thought.
>> Maybe one day I'll reshaft an iron with those and do a comparison. Who
>> knows, maybe the extra expense is worth it.
>>
>> Scott
>
>I'm playing the TTDG SL S300 shafts in my irons - they weigh in around
>105grams in comparison to the TTDG S300's at 125-130grams. Quite a
>noticeable difference.

Do you really feel a difference in the weight?

Right now my clubs are shafted with the TT Lite XLs mainly because I
could lengthen them long enough without using extensions (1 1/2
inches, tipped stiff). I have used other shafts and have another older
set that came with the golds and extensions added and in my hands I
have a hard time telling the dif. Blessed with hands of stone I guess.
Could explain the putting...

>
>If found that these shafts produce the same trajectory and
>characteristics of the TTDG's except that, at outset, they seem to play
>stiffer. The do take a bit of getting used to, as far as 'feel' goes,
>at least they did with me.
>
>Not sure of the price, but they are more than the TTDG's.
>
>I like them.
>

Date: 12 Nov 2006 11:32:26
From: David Sneddon
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Bear wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:24:00 -0500, David Sneddon <nospam@nospam.net>
> wrote:

>>I'm playing the TTDG SL S300 shafts in my irons - they weigh in around
>>105grams in comparison to the TTDG S300's at 125-130grams. Quite a
>>noticeable difference.
>
>
> Do you really feel a difference in the weight?

Yes - right away I could feel the difference.

David

Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:33:52
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On 12-Nov-2006, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:

> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.11.12.13.55.51.59832@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > The other thing, there's hardly any difference in price between TT Lites
> > and Dynamic Golds. You're looking at what, $6/shaft? They're both cheap
> > as
> > dirt.
>
> Dynamic Golds (Lite) are more like $10/shaft. Off the cuff, I thought
> they
> were more like $12, so there's not as much difference in price as I
> thought.
> Maybe one day I'll reshaft an iron with those and do a comparison. Who
> knows, maybe the extra expense is worth it.

Then there is the TT Black Gold @ $18.50 (Golfsmith). I've only hit these
once on a simulator and they mmust be good cause it made the Adams Idea
Irons feel good! :-)

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:46:53
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:4557bd6e$0$17428$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
>
> Then there is the TT Black Gold @ $18.50 (Golfsmith). I've only hit these
> once on a simulator and they mmust be good cause it made the Adams Idea
> Irons feel good! :-)
>

I'm afraid to try those. Self-restraint is not my strongest suit. I can
barely afford what I have now, if that.

Scott

Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:21:29
From: damnyankee
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:

>
> Get it now?
>
> Never mind. Self-centered people never look in a mirror.
>
> Mike

Come on Mike, you know ingorance is bliss!

Bryan

Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:28:47
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
> Some say this is just normal for what is known as the silly season, but
> in truth, this started far in advance of that. It is intentional,
> initiated and maintained by people who place themselves ahead of the
> group, and who pick fights just to give themselves a forum from which
> they can spout their views.

Maybe they are just bored from all the posts bitchin about the lack of
golf content?
Rather than whining about the lack of golf content, why don't you post
some of your own?

> There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
> something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
> golfers leave, who is left?

Wahhh, Wahhh, fuckin Wahhh!!

If you cancel a tee-time, there's usually somebody there to take your
place. If someone walks out of the 19th Hole it won't be long before
someone new walks in. The posting numbers in this group for October
are about the same as the past 4 years.
The number of posts here peaked around 2001 (about when I became a
regular, not coincidentally) and have declined steadily ever since.
This probably isn't due to my OT posts or your spamming so much as it
is the fact that there are many more sources for golf info available on
the net these days. And certainly many better places than this for good
golf info. Personally, I've never come here for golf info, I go to
pgatour.com, golfchannel.com, or lpga.com for that. I come here for the
entertainment.

Here's some RSG posting stats from Google:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
1991 251 507
189 190 99 16
1992 247 195 276 372 298 366 684 342 392 181
177 206
1993 367 471 580 842 689 935 925 805 1114 375
646 865
1994 1132 1170 1257 2120 2294 2620 2743 2909 2256 2532 2522
2172
1995 2594 2576 4964 4211 3883 4007 4687 4730 3454 2260 2798
2892
1996 4202 4149 3296 5094 4491 4502 4752 4302 3976 3988 3430
2938
1997 3998 4395 4802 6506 4678 4931 5520 3992 3876 2968 2393
3086
1998 3811 4468 5509 5799 6259 6040 6448 6827 5382 4688 4815
3910
1999 4813 5640 6030 5906 4245 6349 7740 9187 10028 6970 5218
5028
2000 5699 5936 7033 6818 6566 8720 10924 10568 5133 6734 6904
6043
2001 8077 7078 6239 8856 8491 11578 13323 11910 8331 7179
6941 7290
2002 10752 6795 8103 10012 9535 9254 9314 8865 8041 7269 7930
6920
2003 5737 6379 7930 7541 8638 7753 9966 10138 6888 6200 6183
5008
2004 5824 6880 6720 8113 6545 9321 8873 9329 8785 6734 5549
6667
2005 7436 7096 8780 8804 7039 7323 7954 8052 7240 6875 5479
7444
2006 4982 4576 6048 5579 5903 7258 7348 8977 6756 6366

Date: 11 Nov 2006 15:49:57
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
>>Some say this is just normal for what is known as the silly season, but
>>in truth, this started far in advance of that. It is intentional,
>>initiated and maintained by people who place themselves ahead of the
>>group, and who pick fights just to give themselves a forum from which
>>they can spout their views.
>
>
> Maybe they are just bored from all the posts bitchin about the lack of
> golf content?
> Rather than whining about the lack of golf content, why don't you post
> some of your own?

Wow--given that my involvement in the OT threads is virtually
nonexistent, one would think you'd have checked my posting record before
posting something like that.

But then, it's all about you, isn't it? Which, BTW, was my point.

>>There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
>>something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
>>golfers leave, who is left?
>
>
> Wahhh, Wahhh, fuckin Wahhh!!
>
> If you cancel a tee-time, there's usually somebody there to take your
> place. If someone walks out of the 19th Hole it won't be long before
> someone new walks in. The posting numbers in this group for October
> are about the same as the past 4 years.
> The number of posts here peaked around 2001 (about when I became a
> regular, not coincidentally) and have declined steadily ever since.

Exactly.

In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the
way things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!

You are, as it turns out, the unrepaired broken window. Unfortunately,
there was little we could do about that, given usenet is what it is,
short of asking you to have some consideration for others. You blew
that off, though, didn't you?

And for those who say that online persona are different than the real
person, talk to a psychologist. The online persona IS the real person.
The one produces the other.

> This probably isn't due to my OT posts or your spamming so much as it
> is the fact that there are many more sources for golf info available on
> the net these days.

Actually, it has a great deal to do with you.

This was a great source for golf information and conversation. People
left not because there were more sources, but because the value of this
one declined. The best sources for golf information will not hurt for
participants. It's only when the value declines that people go elsewhere.

Get it now?

Never mind. Self-centered people never look in a mirror.

Mike

Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:48:06
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Mike Dalecki" <mike@dalecki.net > wrote
>
>> If you cancel a tee-time, there's usually somebody there to take your
>> place. If someone walks out of the 19th Hole it won't be long before
>> someone new walks in. The posting numbers in this group for October
>> are about the same as the past 4 years.
>> The number of posts here peaked around 2001 (about when I became a
>> regular, not coincidentally) and have declined steadily ever since.
>
> Exactly.
>
> In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
> self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the way
> things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!

I have to call foul here. There are plenty of others here who behave far
more immaturely than Annika, some of whom never post golf content. Annika
does.

> You are, as it turns out, the unrepaired broken window. Unfortunately,
> there was little we could do about that, given usenet is what it is, short
> of asking you to have some consideration for others. You blew that off,
> though, didn't you?

I was one who called you to task on your Broken Windows thesis. While there
may be some truth to it, it fails to address a fundamental part of some
people's constitution -- that they don't want some self-announted net cops
telling them how to behave.

My thesis, which didn't have a fancy name like Broken Windows -- but here's
one I just thought of, let's call it "The FAQ Off Theory" -- is this:
Almost all flame wars in RSG (and elsewhere, so far as I can tell) stem from
warring factions telling the other how to behave, and the other side
resisting. It's never enough to simply disagree on ideas -- the point at
which a debate evolves into a flame war is when one side resorts to telling
the other person how to argue his case or how to behave.

Annika makes a valid point (elsewhere in this thread), and curiously, it's
one you've made before yourself, but have oddy disregarded of late -- that
the best way to reverse a trend in off-topic postings is to post on-topic.
I haven't seen much of that out of those (including you) who have been most
vocal about all the off-topic postings.

> And for those who say that online persona are different than the real
> person, talk to a psychologist. The online persona IS the real person.
> The one produces the other.

To say that a person that has a personality streak in them capable of
producing a certain tone of posts here is an indication that the person is
fundamentally like that is the same as saying a person who has a bad temper
at certain times is always mad. It's simply not true.

Annika is outrageous, irreverant and sometimes disrespectful, particularly
toward those for whom he holds little or no respect. Well, guess what --
that's what I like about it. And for the record, even among those who've
complained about his behavior online, I've never known a single person here
in RSG to complain about his demeaner in-person or on the golf course.

Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to punch
someone out in person.

That a person's behavior doesn't meet with your standards is indicative only
that their behavior doesn't meet your standards. It says nothing about the
standards of anyone else, or their reaction to the behavior.

>> This probably isn't due to my OT posts or your spamming so much as it
>> is the fact that there are many more sources for golf info available on
>> the net these days.
>
>
> Actually, it has a great deal to do with you.

Actually, that is merely your opinion, and would only be relevant if you had
some factual statistics to back up such a ridiculous assertion that the
reason for a reduced number of posts in RSG is directly related to
Annika1980. You can't prove it, so why even make a statement that,
obviously, cannot be substantiated?

I could allege that the reason for the reduced number of postings is because
your commercial sig has driven away anti-spammers from the group. I don't
believe that. But if I alleged it, it would be based on the same amount of
evidence as that which you can produce to support your statement -- none.

> This was a great source for golf information and conversation. People
> left not because there were more sources, but because the value of this
> one declined.

Again, that's an assertion without any real evidence to support it.

But it is a fact -- easily substantiated -- that there is an ever-growing
number of online resources for solid reporting of golf information, solid
instructional articles, discussions about clubmaking, and information
relating to just about any other golf topic. While Annika (and I) cannot
produce any cause-and-effect evidence to support his theory, either, that
the reason for the decline in the number of posts here has to do with that
increase in online golf offerings, it's no less a reasonable explanation
than yours. And frankly, given that RSG has always had its share of OT
threads and flame wars, it's a little hard to draw the conclusion that the
current crop of them has had any different effect on posting numbers than in
the past.

There have always been off-topic threads and nasty flame wars that people
complained about. Personally, my take (unsubstantiated) is that they've
been at about this same level for years and years. And I say that because
each time there's an uprising of people like you (and you're usually one of
them) to complain about it, they always say, "it's never been this bad."
And yet the percentages always seem about the same.

I would assert that what's different this time is that the content of the OT
threads is something you personally object to, more so than you would if,
say, the OT threads were about off-road motorcycles or Green Bay Packers
football or some such. Politics is nasty, and it brings out the worst in
people (especially the candidates themselves). But if you were to go back
to 2000 leading up to the election, and certainly in the weeks following the
election during the recounts, and again in 2002 and 2004, you'd find a
similar percentage of OT political threads. (And I recall them being even
greater in number in November of 2000.) Only the cast of characters has
changed. And maybe, a few of us who might have been a little less willing
to chime in at certain times in the past decided to give way this time
because emotions were running so high. But the election is over, and those
threads will naturally decline. Now we have the dreaded silly season, which
historically has produced some of the nastiest flame wars in RSG. So it
probably isn't over just yet, and likely won't be until the weather turns
warm again in the Spring and we get the usual four-times-a-year nutcase
trolls posting here the week leading up to and immediately following each of
the four majors..

> The best sources for golf information will not hurt for participants. It's
> only when the value declines that people go elsewhere.

Actually, I have another theory. Again, I don't have as fancy a name for it
as you do for your Broken Windows thesis, so let's just call it the Tiger
Phenomenon.

Earlier this year, I thought the overall golf content in RSG -- as a
percentage of posts received to my news server -- was as high as it had been
in at least a couple of years. That's when Tiger was winning six in a row,
and while he racked up career major championships #11 and #12. No one can
reasonably argue that RSG wasn't chocked full of golf content during that
period.

I think it's because golf -- well, Tiger's golf, anyway -- was creating a
buzz. Similar to the buzz it created in '00 and '01 when he was collecting
all four major championship trophies to set on his mantle at one time.

But then, following the WGC-AMEX event, Tiger's 6th consecutive victory on
the PGA TOUR, he called it a season. Coincidentally, that's when the
political season had heated to a boiling point -- about a month before the
election. I mean, given a choice between venting one's frustration over the
direction of our country and talking about those stalwarts of
conversation-starters, Joe Durant and Davis Love III, not surprisingly,
people talked about what was most on their minds. And it wasn't the Fruit
of the Loom Boxer Shorts Open being played at the TPC at Pungent Valley.

I have no doubt things will return to normal. They always do.

> Get it now?
>
> Never mind. Self-centered people never look in a mirror.

Neither do judgemental, holier-than-thou types. Not that I'm accusing
anyone. I'm just sayin'. :-)

Randy

Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:16:15
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:48:06 -0500, "R&B" wrote:

> Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
> certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to
> punch someone out in person.

Speaking of blowing off steam, I read somewhere recently that the
incidence of rape has gone way down in recent years, primarily (it is
thought) because the wide availability of porn on the internet.

I often participate in these admittedly pointless threads. I fully
understand that Larry is a fraud and a troll, and that many of the other
participants are either too stunned or too self-absorbed to think about
the posts they're responding to. But I don't really care. I like to write,
and I find all this backing and forthing helps clarify my own thoughts.
And I enjoy reading the stuff from the better writers who post here.

Maybe all this political crap does function like porn. I never talk about
politics or religion anywhere else.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 00:27:10
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Carbon wrote:
> Maybe all this political crap does function like porn. I never talk
> about politics or religion anywhere else.

Don't talk about porn at work. Shemales and carpet munchers get offended.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:02:14
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:16:15 GMT, Carbon
<nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:48:06 -0500, "R&B" wrote:
>
>> Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
>> certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to
>> punch someone out in person.
>
>Speaking of blowing off steam, I read somewhere recently that the
>incidence of rape has gone way down in recent years, primarily (it is
>thought) because the wide availability of porn on the internet.
>
>I often participate in these admittedly pointless threads. I fully
>understand that Larry is a fraud and a troll, and that many of the other
>participants are either too stunned or too self-absorbed to think about
>the posts they're responding to. But I don't really care. I like to write,
>and I find all this backing and forthing helps clarify my own thoughts.
>And I enjoy reading the stuff from the better writers who post here.
>
>Maybe all this political crap does function like porn. I never talk about
>politics or religion anywhere else.

Thanks for sharing with us then.

American politics wow what a great subject for an international golf
group. Well it used to be. you might as well put USA in the group name
now 'cause most of the non yanks have stopped dropping by.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:35:05
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"R&B" wrote:
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@dalecki.net> wrote
>>> If you cancel a tee-time, there's usually somebody there to take your
>>> place. If someone walks out of the 19th Hole it won't be long before
>>> someone new walks in. The posting numbers in this group for October
>>> are about the same as the past 4 years.
>>> The number of posts here peaked around 2001 (about when I became a
>>> regular, not coincidentally) and have declined steadily ever since.
>> Exactly.
>>
>> In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
>> self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the way
>> things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!
>
>
>
> I have to call foul here. There are plenty of others here who behave far
> more immaturely than Annika, some of whom never post golf content. Annika
> does.

So? Look back over the threads the last week or two. See how many he's
initiated that *haven't* been about golf.

The weakest argument in the world is one in which you note there is an
exception to a generalization. The fact that Bret has posted the
occasional golf item doesn't do a single thing to refute the fact that
he is far more an instigator of off-topic stuff than a creator of golf
content.

You know better than this, Randy.

>> You are, as it turns out, the unrepaired broken window. Unfortunately,
>> there was little we could do about that, given usenet is what it is, short
>> of asking you to have some consideration for others. You blew that off,
>> though, didn't you?
>
>
> I was one who called you to task on your Broken Windows thesis.

A few others did as well. But calling me on it isn't the same thing as
being right.

For what it's worth--and I find this fascinating--I'll be teaching about
Broken Windows in my class over the next few weeks. Among the examples
I'll be using is RSG, because it is a wonderful example of how this kind
of thing works.

And just like a run-down neighborhood in which people don't pick up the
trash, don't repair broken windows, don't keep up their properties, RSG
is no longer what it once was.

To continue the community metaphor, RSG has become a rundown slum on the
internet, one in which there are no standards for behavior. As a
result, increasingly, fewer and fewer want to "live there" any more, at
least, those for whom the desirable domicile involves "Golf."

While there
> may be some truth to it, it fails to address a fundamental part of some
> people's constitution -- that they don't want some self-announted net cops
> telling them how to behave.
>

And this is why we have the problems we do. Everybody wants freedom,
but nobody stops to realize that freedom in a society such as ours
cannot exist without restraint. It's "me first, only me. And screw
everybody else who tries to interfere with my self-actualization."

This is exactly the same lame argument that landlords here made when
they said that the city had no right to tell them what to do with their
property.

The important distinction is this: Just because someone can fart and
stink up the joint doesn't mean they should. And those who insist on
their right to fart are revealing something very fundamental about
themselves.

> My thesis, which didn't have a fancy name like Broken Windows -- but here's
> one I just thought of, let's call it "The FAQ Off Theory" -- is this:
> Almost all flame wars in RSG (and elsewhere, so far as I can tell) stem from
> warring factions telling the other how to behave, and the other side
> resisting. It's never enough to simply disagree on ideas -- the point at
> which a debate evolves into a flame war is when one side resorts to telling
> the other person how to argue his case or how to behave.
>
> Annika makes a valid point (elsewhere in this thread), and curiously, it's
> one you've made before yourself, but have oddy disregarded of late -- that
> the best way to reverse a trend in off-topic postings is to post on-topic.
> I haven't seen much of that out of those (including you) who have been most
> vocal about all the off-topic postings.

This is a really bad argument, Randy. I post golf content. I don't get
involved in these political threads. I post new topics on golf, I
participate in existing topics, and I am not the problem.

This just in: Those who post OT are the problem. And yet, you want to
turn the blame on those not posting golf content? Pretty convenient way
to excuse the behavior of those who are posting OT, if you ask me. Too
convenient.

Your over-the-top response suggests that I might just have struck a
nerve with you. We both know you're part of the group that posts OT
stuff with regularity. You're part of what has made RSG into what it
is--something increasingly useless for golf conversation.

And the interesting thing I see is that none of these "I have the right
to post what I want" apologists seem to recognize not who is here, but
who isn't here.

Randy, you ran two wonderful RSG golf events just a few years back.
Well-attended, and enjoyable.

Remember the sense of bonding, of cameraderie, of feeling like we all
had something in common, something special? We were all devoted to
enjoying golf, and enjoying the weekend.

Do you think that the magic of that time could be recreated? Do you
think it would be as easy?

If nothing else, I'd say that the magic of RSG is gone. Ultimately, one
has to wonder why.

Look at former RSG'ers who aren't here posting. Whatever happened to
Bruce Newman? Whatever happened to Dan Driscoll? Just think for a
minute who we have lost, and wonder why.

I'm a member of a number of email lists composed of RSG'ers and former
RSG'ers. In each case, people there lament the loss of RSG, and what it
was. So much so, that they have given up. They're gone, and more's the
pity.

Meanwhile, you and Bret and a few others can continue to do what you do.
But eventually, aren't you going to tire of that as well? And when
that happens, what will you have left behind?

In the end, Randy, you're responsible for your actions. You were, once,
a big part of something pretty cool.

Are you still?

>
>> And for those who say that online persona are different than the real
>> person, talk to a psychologist. The online persona IS the real person.
>> The one produces the other.
>
>
> To say that a person that has a personality streak in them capable of
> producing a certain tone of posts here is an indication that the person is
> fundamentally like that is the same as saying a person who has a bad temper
> at certain times is always mad. It's simply not true.

Of course it's true. Who on earth do you think produces the online
persona?

The real person *is* the online persona. They may feel that they can
get away with something in an online environment that they would never
try face-to-face, but what, then, does that say about them?

Naturally, it says that they would be willing to do the same thing in
any environment in which they could get away with it.

> Annika is outrageous, irreverant and sometimes disrespectful, particularly
> toward those for whom he holds little or no respect. Well, guess what --
> that's what I like about it. And for the record, even among those who've
> complained about his behavior online, I've never known a single person here
> in RSG to complain about his demeaner in-person or on the golf course.

So? He is what he is. He may be pleasant in person, though that isn't
a universally-held opinion, but what lurks below the surface? What kind
of upstanding citizen would post about minor girls like he does? Or
post OT photos just to bask in others' adulation? Or intentionally
start political threads in a place they really aren't appropriate? Or
just decide he'll do whatever he wants regardless of what it may mean
for others' enjoyment?

You may trust him. If I ever see him again, I'm sure I'll be pleasant
enough to him, but trust him with anything important? After knowing how
he conducts himself here?

He is what he is here, and if you think that doesn't mean anything, if I
were you, I'd hold onto my wallet. I'll surely hold onto mine.

> Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
> certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to punch
> someone out in person.

My God, Randy, this is incredible. Yours is a manifesto for anarchy--do
whatever you want in the name of blowing off steam.

What the hell--someone can just post off-color, pornographic, lewd
accounts here on RSG. They can just check it off to blowing off steam,
right?

If someone is having troubles at work, they might just as well post them
here, right? It's all in the name of blowing off steam.

And if someone has a bad streak at cards, they might just as well post
about that here, right? In the name of blowing off steam, of course.

When you say there are no lines, Randy, there really are none. You
would appear to think that there are some, somewhere, beyond which
people won't go, but it doesn't take long for people to cross them.
They will always test the limit.

This is the essence of the Broken Windows argument, and something that
for whatever reason, doesn't resonate with you.

When you say there are no lines of behavior that can't be crossed,
you're saying anything goes. You might disagree, but on what basis? If
you've got a golf newsgroup, and you're saying that people don't need to
respect that, then where are you? Anything goes.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post--it's just a recap of
stuff you've done before.

In the end, though, you have to ask yourself whether you really believe
this stuff, or if it's just a convenient way to defend the behavior of
OT posters, a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility.

Mike

Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:04:46
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:

: For what it's worth--and I find this fascinating--I'll be teaching about
: Broken Windows in my class over the next few weeks. Among the examples
: I'll be using is RSG, because it is a wonderful example of how this kind
: of thing works.
:
: And just like a run-down neighborhood in which people don't pick up the
: trash, don't repair broken windows, don't keep up their properties, RSG
: is no longer what it once was.

I think it never was what it once was, at least not since 95%
of the posts came from the .edu and .gov domains. (Goddam
netcom lusers!)

I also think that you're trying to reverse the Second Law of
Thermodynamics a bit here, which simply doesn't work.

Topic drift is a natural behavior among people who know each
other, and it happens everywhere, not even just in Usenet. I
would suggest that if your interest in rsg is purely about the
golf, be sure to make liberal use of your killfile. If it's also
about the people in rsg, be prepared to accept some topic drift.

As for the political threads, they'll die down soon, for the
most part.

As for the "Quit Ruining RSG" threads, they *never* die.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:44:42
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

You could have summed up everything you said here with these words:

I was right, you were wrong, and the reason this is so is because I say it
is.

There, I said it for you.

And I repeat it back at you.

That saves everyone a lot of trouble.

Randy

"Mike Dalecki" <mike@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote in message
news:4rp0pqFs71m1U1@mid.individual.net...
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@dalecki.net> wrote
>>>> If you cancel a tee-time, there's usually somebody there to take your
>>>> place. If someone walks out of the 19th Hole it won't be long before
>>>> someone new walks in. The posting numbers in this group for October
>>>> are about the same as the past 4 years.
>>>> The number of posts here peaked around 2001 (about when I became a
>>>> regular, not coincidentally) and have declined steadily ever since.
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
>>> self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the
>>> way things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!
>>
>>
>>
>> I have to call foul here. There are plenty of others here who behave far
>> more immaturely than Annika, some of whom never post golf content.
>> Annika does.
>
> So? Look back over the threads the last week or two. See how many he's
> initiated that *haven't* been about golf.
>
> The weakest argument in the world is one in which you note there is an
> exception to a generalization. The fact that Bret has posted the
> occasional golf item doesn't do a single thing to refute the fact that he
> is far more an instigator of off-topic stuff than a creator of golf
> content.
>
> You know better than this, Randy.
>
>
>
>>> You are, as it turns out, the unrepaired broken window. Unfortunately,
>>> there was little we could do about that, given usenet is what it is,
>>> short of asking you to have some consideration for others. You blew
>>> that off, though, didn't you?
>>
>>
>> I was one who called you to task on your Broken Windows thesis.
>
> A few others did as well. But calling me on it isn't the same thing as
> being right.
>
> For what it's worth--and I find this fascinating--I'll be teaching about
> Broken Windows in my class over the next few weeks. Among the examples
> I'll be using is RSG, because it is a wonderful example of how this kind
> of thing works.
>
> And just like a run-down neighborhood in which people don't pick up the
> trash, don't repair broken windows, don't keep up their properties, RSG is
> no longer what it once was.
>
> To continue the community metaphor, RSG has become a rundown slum on the
> internet, one in which there are no standards for behavior. As a result,
> increasingly, fewer and fewer want to "live there" any more, at least,
> those for whom the desirable domicile involves "Golf."
>
>
>
> While there
>> may be some truth to it, it fails to address a fundamental part of some
>> people's constitution -- that they don't want some self-announted net
>> cops telling them how to behave.
>>
>
> And this is why we have the problems we do. Everybody wants freedom, but
> nobody stops to realize that freedom in a society such as ours cannot
> exist without restraint. It's "me first, only me. And screw everybody
> else who tries to interfere with my self-actualization."
>
> This is exactly the same lame argument that landlords here made when they
> said that the city had no right to tell them what to do with their
> property.
>
> The important distinction is this: Just because someone can fart and
> stink up the joint doesn't mean they should. And those who insist on
> their right to fart are revealing something very fundamental about
> themselves.
>
>
>> My thesis, which didn't have a fancy name like Broken Windows -- but
>> here's one I just thought of, let's call it "The FAQ Off Theory" -- is
>> this: Almost all flame wars in RSG (and elsewhere, so far as I can tell)
>> stem from warring factions telling the other how to behave, and the other
>> side resisting. It's never enough to simply disagree on ideas -- the
>> point at which a debate evolves into a flame war is when one side resorts
>> to telling the other person how to argue his case or how to behave.
>>
>> Annika makes a valid point (elsewhere in this thread), and curiously,
>> it's one you've made before yourself, but have oddy disregarded of
>> late -- that the best way to reverse a trend in off-topic postings is to
>> post on-topic. I haven't seen much of that out of those (including you)
>> who have been most vocal about all the off-topic postings.
>
> This is a really bad argument, Randy. I post golf content. I don't get
> involved in these political threads. I post new topics on golf, I
> participate in existing topics, and I am not the problem.
>
> This just in: Those who post OT are the problem. And yet, you want to
> turn the blame on those not posting golf content? Pretty convenient way
> to excuse the behavior of those who are posting OT, if you ask me. Too
> convenient.
>
> Your over-the-top response suggests that I might just have struck a nerve
> with you. We both know you're part of the group that posts OT stuff with
> regularity. You're part of what has made RSG into what it is--something
> increasingly useless for golf conversation.
>
> And the interesting thing I see is that none of these "I have the right to
> post what I want" apologists seem to recognize not who is here, but who
> isn't here.
>
> Randy, you ran two wonderful RSG golf events just a few years back.
> Well-attended, and enjoyable.
>
> Remember the sense of bonding, of cameraderie, of feeling like we all had
> something in common, something special? We were all devoted to enjoying
> golf, and enjoying the weekend.
>
> Do you think that the magic of that time could be recreated? Do you think
> it would be as easy?
>
> If nothing else, I'd say that the magic of RSG is gone. Ultimately, one
> has to wonder why.
>
> Look at former RSG'ers who aren't here posting. Whatever happened to
> Bruce Newman? Whatever happened to Dan Driscoll? Just think for a minute
> who we have lost, and wonder why.
>
> I'm a member of a number of email lists composed of RSG'ers and former
> RSG'ers. In each case, people there lament the loss of RSG, and what it
> was. So much so, that they have given up. They're gone, and more's the
> pity.
>
> Meanwhile, you and Bret and a few others can continue to do what you do.
> But eventually, aren't you going to tire of that as well? And when that
> happens, what will you have left behind?
>
> In the end, Randy, you're responsible for your actions. You were, once, a
> big part of something pretty cool.
>
> Are you still?
>
>
>>
>>> And for those who say that online persona are different than the real
>>> person, talk to a psychologist. The online persona IS the real person.
>>> The one produces the other.
>>
>>
>> To say that a person that has a personality streak in them capable of
>> producing a certain tone of posts here is an indication that the person
>> is fundamentally like that is the same as saying a person who has a bad
>> temper at certain times is always mad. It's simply not true.
>
> Of course it's true. Who on earth do you think produces the online
> persona?
>
> The real person *is* the online persona. They may feel that they can get
> away with something in an online environment that they would never try
> face-to-face, but what, then, does that say about them?
>
> Naturally, it says that they would be willing to do the same thing in any
> environment in which they could get away with it.
>
>
>> Annika is outrageous, irreverant and sometimes disrespectful,
>> particularly toward those for whom he holds little or no respect. Well,
>> guess what -- that's what I like about it. And for the record, even
>> among those who've complained about his behavior online, I've never known
>> a single person here in RSG to complain about his demeaner in-person or
>> on the golf course.
>
>
> So? He is what he is. He may be pleasant in person, though that isn't a
> universally-held opinion, but what lurks below the surface? What kind of
> upstanding citizen would post about minor girls like he does? Or post OT
> photos just to bask in others' adulation? Or intentionally start
> political threads in a place they really aren't appropriate? Or just
> decide he'll do whatever he wants regardless of what it may mean for
> others' enjoyment?
>
> You may trust him. If I ever see him again, I'm sure I'll be pleasant
> enough to him, but trust him with anything important? After knowing how
> he conducts himself here?
>
> He is what he is here, and if you think that doesn't mean anything, if I
> were you, I'd hold onto my wallet. I'll surely hold onto mine.
>
>
>> Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
>> certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to punch
>> someone out in person.
>
> My God, Randy, this is incredible. Yours is a manifesto for anarchy--do
> whatever you want in the name of blowing off steam.
>
> What the hell--someone can just post off-color, pornographic, lewd
> accounts here on RSG. They can just check it off to blowing off steam,
> right?
>
> If someone is having troubles at work, they might just as well post them
> here, right? It's all in the name of blowing off steam.
>
> And if someone has a bad streak at cards, they might just as well post
> about that here, right? In the name of blowing off steam, of course.
>
>
> When you say there are no lines, Randy, there really are none. You would
> appear to think that there are some, somewhere, beyond which people won't
> go, but it doesn't take long for people to cross them. They will always
> test the limit.
>
> This is the essence of the Broken Windows argument, and something that for
> whatever reason, doesn't resonate with you.
>
> When you say there are no lines of behavior that can't be crossed, you're
> saying anything goes. You might disagree, but on what basis? If you've
> got a golf newsgroup, and you're saying that people don't need to respect
> that, then where are you? Anything goes.
>
> I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post--it's just a recap of
> stuff you've done before.
>
> In the end, though, you have to ask yourself whether you really believe
> this stuff, or if it's just a convenient way to defend the behavior of OT
> posters, a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility.
>
>
> Mike

Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:10:07
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Watson deMeneux wrote:
> The nice thing about usenet is that you don't have to "listen" to the
> conversations you don't like. Just scroll past 'em and find a nugget
> thread. Of course, when the room is full of thirteen year olds, it's
> tough to find an intelligent conversation.

Oooooh, that's so hot!

Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:46:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Too many threads about the ruination of the group, obviously.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:51:23
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Head Shot wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > I think this group was ruined when they let Netcom get a
> > newsfeed.
>
> WebTV and AOL ruined the Internet. They should just go back to the days of
> DARPA and make us work on IBM 360's again. *
>

I remember using Delphi to access what was then the Internet. I was
amazed at the number of places you could end up by following various
branches. Nowadays, you just type in what you want.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 03:55:46
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it!

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:04:33 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> : On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:20:20 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> :> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :
> :> :> revise trade practices such that American manufacturing is protected
> :> :> and thus rebuilt,
> :> :
> :> : Repeal NAFTA? Withdraw from WTO?
> :
> : You'd tank the dollar.
>
> Bingo!

And that's a good thing?

Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:09:59
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it!

Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
: On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:04:33 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
: > : On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:20:20 +0000, Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > :> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
: > :> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > :
: > :> :> revise trade practices such that American manufacturing is protected
: > :> :> and thus rebuilt,
: > :> :
: > :> : Repeal NAFTA? Withdraw from WTO?
: > :
: > : You'd tank the dollar.
: >
: > Bingo!
:
: And that's a good thing?

It depends on who you are and what you're doing.

If you're an American manufacturer, or work for one, and you'd
like to be able to export what you make, it's a great thing.

If you're an international traveler, it's a pretty bad thing.

If your business is outsourcing jobs to India, it's a terrible
thing.

If you're a consumer wanting to buy cheap goods made in Asia,
it's a terrible thing.

Personally, I think our cheap-goods-from-Asia:good-American-jobs
ratio has gotten so far out of balance that we would do well to
weaken the dollar for a long while. The big wildcard is whether
crude will still sell in dollars if that happens, though. Nothing
is simple, not even my solutions. :-/

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:50:03
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it!

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3kbimcI2frN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> Personally, I think our cheap-goods-from-Asia:good-American-jobs
> ratio has gotten so far out of balance that we would do well to
> weaken the dollar for a long while. The big wildcard is whether
> crude will still sell in dollars if that happens, though. Nothing
> is simple, not even my solutions. :-/
>

There's no question about that. It has already been discussed by Iran
without any such wild deviations from the course on our part. Who cares?
If the question at hand is a return to more isolationist policies, we'll
have more to worry about than the currency of trade in oil. How 'bout China
calling in it's debt, or simply dumping it's dollars?

The scenario you describe would require total commitment on our part.
Isolationism implies isolation. We would suddenly have to function as a
much more self-contained economy again. I'm not convinced that we wouldn't
be better off by taking such a radical economic policy, but the implications
are huge and require a tolerance of suffering that I don't think your
average American is up to anymore.

The quality of life of many Americans would take a nosedive, but
unfortunately the current quality of life of many Americans is more due to
Wan's Pawn shop than anything else. At least there would be some hope for
the future in such a course. As it stands, we're heading swiftly towards an
economic catastrophe.

China alone has the ability to destroy us as an economic player in the
world. China would have to seriously damage itself to do so, but not
mortally. The wound for us would be fatal. So, for now China would never
do such a thing, since it's not in it's best interests. But what happens if
our relationship with China takes a sharp turn towards the uncomfortable (or
we simply become nonessential to them as a marketplace for goods), in the
meantime we become even more indebted to them, and economic warfare with the
US no longer looks like a losing proposition to the Chinese for whatever
reason?

I hear they like golf over there.

Scott

Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:43:26
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Gordo wrote:

>
>
> I've been considering a lot of things as it pertains to RSG for quite
> some time. Tilting at windmills aside, there are a lot of people here
> that have been here for some time. More passion is put in to personal
> attacks and screaming about the OT content. It seems that no one wants
> to remain above the fray. I know, I've done more than my share of
> sniping. Rather than a few getting 'holier than thou' attitudes, why
> doesn't everyone just try to post what they're going to post. If one
> doesn't like that, then they don't have to read. If the purpose of
> responding in a post is just to inflame, just move on! Lot's of the
> trolls will disappear back under the bridge if that's done I think.

There is a rotten core of people here whose main reason to post here is to attack
posts of other people. They take no real position themselves, just attack others.
Any position they do take is "defended" to the point of irrationality. I have done
a few experiments here and there. For example, I (have more than once) posted
stuff from another group related to The Golf Machine. The views were those of a
highly respected expert on TGM. It was trashed by people who haven't a clue. Very
telling, not to mention enormously satisfying! I've also posted information on
spine aligning from a very credible source, only to have it trashed. Another thing
I did was get as hostile as I could against spine aligning on another forum; what
I would consider to be really nasty...and there were some hostile responses, but
nothing like here, where all I have done is state my objection. I have also posted
the exact views I have here on every other major forum and had no problem with it
at all. Again, all very revealing and very reassuring to me, and very definitive
of the nature of RSG.

I see no point to talking about my golf game, or expressing my views on golf for
the core of trolls that live here. Like Greg, I post here for the fun of it. You,
for example, taught a well known self proclaimed expert on clubmaking here how to
make clubs. You have made clubs professionally for one of the most repected
clubmakers out there, yet you have never pontificated on anything, you don't
"correct" people and you don't trash people because they don't follow your vaunted
"advice". I would love it if someone like Tom Wishon posted here on clubmaking as
an anon, just to see the response of the regulars. At least RSG regular would have
a lot of trouble with someone trying to "establish himself" as a "clubmaking
expert" here!

Date: 13 Nov 2006 23:14:16
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
> There is a rotten core of people here whose main reason to post here
> is to attack posts of other people. They take no real position
> themselves, just attack others.

Want some cheese with that whine; Mr. Rhodes Technical School?

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:04:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:
> I remember using Delphi to access what was then the Internet. I was
> amazed at the number of places you could end up by following various
> branches. Nowadays, you just type in what you want.

My first home account was with Compuserve; and then eventually with
Prodigy. I ran a personal BBS back in those days; using Telegard
(Shakedown Street BBS). At work I managed a Compuserve X.25 (packet
switched) network that collected data from external companies using
Galacticomm Major BBS (256 nodes).

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:20:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:04:35 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:

>annika1980 wrote:
>> I remember using Delphi to access what was then the Internet. I was
>> amazed at the number of places you could end up by following various
>> branches. Nowadays, you just type in what you want.
>
>My first home account was with Compuserve; and then eventually with
>Prodigy. I ran a personal BBS back in those days; using Telegard
>(Shakedown Street BBS). At work I managed a Compuserve X.25 (packet
>switched) network that collected data from external companies using
>Galacticomm Major BBS (256 nodes).

Those were the days. I remember when I thought I was hot shit because
I had a 14.4K modem with an internal phone jack. The first time I
connected to the Reuters Sports desk in England and got up to the
minute soccer scores I thought it was a miracle.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:35:04
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:04:35 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>> I remember using Delphi to access what was then the Internet. I was
>>> amazed at the number of places you could end up by following various
>>> branches. Nowadays, you just type in what you want.
>> My first home account was with Compuserve; and then eventually with
>> Prodigy. I ran a personal BBS back in those days; using Telegard
>> (Shakedown Street BBS). At work I managed a Compuserve X.25 (packet
>> switched) network that collected data from external companies using
>> Galacticomm Major BBS (256 nodes).
>
> Those were the days. I remember when I thought I was hot shit because
> I had a 14.4K modem with an internal phone jack. The first time I
> connected to the Reuters Sports desk in England and got up to the
> minute soccer scores I thought it was a miracle.

14.4K modem?

I remember a 19.2K modem that was as big as a refrigerator.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:39:31
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:04:35 -0500, "Head Shot"
>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>> I remember using Delphi to access what was then the Internet. I
>>>> was amazed at the number of places you could end up by following
>>>> various branches. Nowadays, you just type in what you want.
>>> My first home account was with Compuserve; and then eventually with
>>> Prodigy. I ran a personal BBS back in those days; using Telegard
>>> (Shakedown Street BBS). At work I managed a Compuserve X.25
>>> (packet switched) network that collected data from external
>>> companies using Galacticomm Major BBS (256 nodes).
>>
>> Those were the days. I remember when I thought I was hot shit
>> because I had a 14.4K modem with an internal phone jack. The first
>> time I connected to the Reuters Sports desk in England and got up to
>> the minute soccer scores I thought it was a miracle.
>
> 14.4K modem?
>
> I remember a 19.2K modem that was as big as a refrigerator.

I remember 1,200 baud and you had to stick the phone into a recepticle.
Then 2,400 Hayes were a big thing; and eventually the 9,600 US Robotics (and
you needed to run a BBS to use the Sysop program or you couldn't afford
them).

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:45:55
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:04:35 -0500, "Head Shot"
>>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>>> I remember using Delphi to access what was then the Internet. I
>>>>> was amazed at the number of places you could end up by following
>>>>> various branches. Nowadays, you just type in what you want.
>>>> My first home account was with Compuserve; and then eventually with
>>>> Prodigy. I ran a personal BBS back in those days; using Telegard
>>>> (Shakedown Street BBS). At work I managed a Compuserve X.25
>>>> (packet switched) network that collected data from external
>>>> companies using Galacticomm Major BBS (256 nodes).
>>> Those were the days. I remember when I thought I was hot shit
>>> because I had a 14.4K modem with an internal phone jack. The first
>>> time I connected to the Reuters Sports desk in England and got up to
>>> the minute soccer scores I thought it was a miracle.
>> 14.4K modem?
>>
>> I remember a 19.2K modem that was as big as a refrigerator.
>
>
> I remember 1,200 baud and you had to stick the phone into a recepticle.
> Then 2,400 Hayes were a big thing; and eventually the 9,600 US Robotics (and
> you needed to run a BBS to use the Sysop program or you couldn't afford
> them).

I remember the 300 bps acoustic couplers, back in '77, connected up to
the glass tube terminal. We also had a TI thermal paper terminal that
would run at 1200 bps. We used to fight over who got to use it.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:33:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:35:04 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>14.4K modem?
>
>I remember a 19.2K modem that was as big as a refrigerator.

The first modems I used in the early 1980s were 9.6k (I think). You
had to take the headset of the phone and put it in a cradle on your
desk. Everything was through bulletin boards (BB) that you accessed
through a telephone number. I remember in the early 1990s getting a
modem that ran at 14.4 k that was all internal and had a phone jack on
the card. Those were the days of CompuServe, which was basically a
mega-BB that allowed you to access lots of other BBs without dialing
separate numbers. I bought my first laptop in the mid 1990s and it
had a small credit card sized modem called Megahertz that ran at 28.8
k. That's when AOL became popular with a Windows version that
eventually gave you access to the Internet.

It all seems very primitive now, but when it was happening it seemed
like science fiction to me.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 09:47:24
From: larry
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >

RSG was ruined when a group of nutcases claimed ownership for
themselves-- a little clique that tried to exclude others. Their
posts in response to any post from an "outsider" were unfailiingly
hostile-and usually profane.

So nice folks left--and now the reputation of RSG is a bunch of idiots
spewing filth at each other, with no moderator to enforce rules or
decorum. People bounce here, get sample of the threads, and bail
out--back to web forums with moderators.

THAT is what ruined RSG. And those who ruined it are still here, some
spending their entire day lurking for a post they can attack.

Larry

Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:15:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:47:24 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>
>RSG was ruined when a group of nutcases claimed ownership for
>themselves-- a little clique that tried to exclude others. Their
>posts in response to any post from an "outsider" were unfailiingly
>hostile-and usually profane.
>
>So nice folks left--and now the reputation of RSG is a bunch of idiots
>spewing filth at each other, with no moderator to enforce rules or
>decorum. People bounce here, get sample of the threads, and bail
>out--back to web forums with moderators.
>
>THAT is what ruined RSG. And those who ruined it are still here, some
>spending their entire day lurking for a post they can attack.
>
>Larry

You are made fun of by the majority of posters here over your wild
boasts regarding your golf game.

You have absolutely no support for your political views here, even
from the most conservative posters.

None of this is because of a small group, but a large number of
people.

Why do you enjoy taking the abuse or ridicule? Is it worth it to be
able to say that you've received it because you started idiotic
threads? Can you possibly be proud of being a laughing stock?

--
___,
\o

Date: 13 Nov 2006 10:52:34
From: larry
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:15:29 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:47:24 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>>
>>RSG was ruined when a group of nutcases claimed ownership for
>>themselves-- a little clique that tried to exclude others. Their
>>posts in response to any post from an "outsider" were unfailiingly
>>hostile-and usually profane.
>>
>>So nice folks left--and now the reputation of RSG is a bunch of idiots
>>spewing filth at each other, with no moderator to enforce rules or
>>decorum. People bounce here, get sample of the threads, and bail
>>out--back to web forums with moderators.
>>
>>THAT is what ruined RSG. And those who ruined it are still here, some
>>spending their entire day lurking for a post they can attack.
>>
>>Larry
>
>You are made fun of by the majority of posters here over your wild
>boasts regarding your golf game.
>
> You have absolutely no support for your political views here, even
>from the most conservative posters.
>
> None of this is because of a small group, but a large number of
>people.
>
>Why do you enjoy taking the abuse or ridicule? Is it worth it to be
>able to say that you've received it because you started idiotic
>threads? Can you possibly be proud of being a laughing stock?

The analogy is to the chickens and the farmer. The clucking of the
chickens sounds something like laughing, but the farmer knows who is
smarter--and who will have the last laugh.

Larry (KING of RSG)

Date: 14 Nov 2006 01:34:13
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Maybe I'll register as a democrat

On 12-Nov-2006, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote:

> I want to let this go, but Y'all keep dragging me back in......
>
> A *LOT* of Cheetos!

Fried or Baked?

me

Date: 13 Nov 2006 21:32:07
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

In article <effhl2h0ka7q8olnkeiu9fo3v0cc618a12@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:15:29 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:47:24 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> >>
> >>RSG was ruined when a group of nutcases claimed ownership for
> >>themselves-- a little clique that tried to exclude others. Their
> >>posts in response to any post from an "outsider" were unfailiingly
> >>hostile-and usually profane.
> >>
> >>So nice folks left--and now the reputation of RSG is a bunch of idiots
> >>spewing filth at each other, with no moderator to enforce rules or
> >>decorum. People bounce here, get sample of the threads, and bail
> >>out--back to web forums with moderators.
> >>
> >>THAT is what ruined RSG. And those who ruined it are still here, some
> >>spending their entire day lurking for a post they can attack.
> >>
> >>Larry
> >
> >You are made fun of by the majority of posters here over your wild
> >boasts regarding your golf game.
> >
> > You have absolutely no support for your political views here, even
> >from the most conservative posters.
> >
> > None of this is because of a small group, but a large number of
> >people.
> >
> >Why do you enjoy taking the abuse or ridicule? Is it worth it to be
> >able to say that you've received it because you started idiotic
> >threads? Can you possibly be proud of being a laughing stock?
>
> The analogy is to the chickens and the farmer. The clucking of the
> chickens sounds something like laughing, but the farmer knows who is
> smarter--and who will have the last laugh.
>
> Larry (KING of RSG)

Actually, you need to update the analogy larry since it has not trickled
down into any sort of accuracy. The farmer breathes the air full of
particles of chicken shit, which causes him short term COPD, leading to
emphysema, an oxygen tank around his waist and absolutely no health care
to take care of his illness, thanks to the repugs thinking health care
was needless and a made-up war on terror in iraq was a much better place
to spend its billions. I said that all in one breath which this farmer
obviously could not do. Chickens beat farmer. Farmer dies. QED.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 13:03:44
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:52:34 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:15:29 -0600, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:

>>You are made fun of by the majority of posters here over your wild
>>boasts regarding your golf game.
>>
>> You have absolutely no support for your political views here, even
>>from the most conservative posters.
>>
>> None of this is because of a small group, but a large number of
>>people.
>>
>>Why do you enjoy taking the abuse or ridicule? Is it worth it to be
>>able to say that you've received it because you started idiotic
>>threads? Can you possibly be proud of being a laughing stock?
>
>The analogy is to the chickens and the farmer. The clucking of the
>chickens sounds something like laughing, but the farmer knows who is
>smarter--and who will have the last laugh.
>
>Larry

So, you now state that you are smarter than all of those who have
caught you in lies, and laugh at your braggings? All of them?

You ain't the farmer here LLLLLLarrrry. You're the donkey.
--
___,
\o

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 13 Nov 2006 21:15:44
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

In article <4lbhl2ldfm32kfe1paqmgkngub0a1gg0ud@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:33:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>
> RSG was ruined when a group of nutcases claimed ownership for
> themselves-- a little clique that tried to exclude others. Their
> posts in response to any post from an "outsider" were unfailiingly
> hostile-and usually profane.

Nonsense and lies. The only insults in our discussions, Larry, were
yours.

>
> So nice folks left--and now the reputation of RSG is a bunch of idiots
> spewing filth at each other, with no moderator to enforce rules or
> decorum. People bounce here, get sample of the threads, and bail
> out--back to web forums with moderators.
>
> THAT is what ruined RSG. And those who ruined it are still here, some
> spending their entire day lurking for a post they can attack.

LOL

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:22:48
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

annika1980 wrote:

> --------------------------
> >
> > He is what he is here, and if you think that doesn't mean anything, if I
> > were you, I'd hold onto my wallet. I'll surely hold onto mine.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you meant by this crack, but I do take offense.
> Are you implying that I'm out to get something or worse, that I'm a
> thief?
> If so, fuck you.

I had to admit that Dullecki shocked me on that one. He made you a
driver, didn't he? I assume you paid him?

Real grateful businessman.

-Greg

Ps. Great post.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:48:45
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Carbon wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:54:20 -0800, Dene wrote:
> > Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
> >> One final thing: I said, a few years back, that circumstances
> >> surrounding RSG were reflective of what is known as the Broken Windows
> >> theory. I argued that OT and SPAM would destroy the group's utility
> >> w/r/t golf. I was vilified by some for that view, but in the end, I've
> >> been proven right.
> >
> > Spoken from the most obvious spammer RSG has ever endured. Why don't
> > you admit your real reasons for sticking around.....$$$$.
>
> Oh Jesus. Not this again. Now Greg, I know you're not stupid. You know the
> difference between spam and a .signature that conforms to long-established
> Usenet convention. If you just don't like him, then fine. Say that instead
> of resorting to some lame-ass excuse.

I have no problem saying it.

I don't like him. I think his spam signature is hypocritical,
indicative of why he has participated through the years. There is no
sense in arguing about it. You'll never change my mind about Dullecki.
His posts in this thread alone further demonstrates his character.

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:26:05
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> I find it curious that you don't point out the lack of agreement
> among c-list members in this thread and admit that your charges
> of cronyism have been waaaaaaay overheated.

Actually, it was a suspicion of mine about this particular situation.
Thanks for confirming it now as fact. Nice to see independent thinking
among y'all.

> : FWIW, I suspect you have adopted the idea of RSG being a 19th hole and
> : thus remain open to discussing all kinds of topics. To me, that's a
> : good thing....far better than being anal about an obsolete charter.
>
> I believe in moderation in all things. This place should be mostly
> about golf. Some meta is ok. Some politics is ok. Golf is the glue,
> though.
>

Amen!

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 22:05:18
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163388364.861252.142750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> I find it curious that you don't point out the lack of agreement
>> among c-list members in this thread and admit that your charges
>> of cronyism have been waaaaaaay overheated.
>
> Actually, it was a suspicion of mine about this particular situation.
> Thanks for confirming it now as fact. Nice to see independent thinking
> among y'all.

I've disagreed with Mike on issues here that Mike feels are important.
Static vs. Dynamic clubfitting as an example.
Mike and I have no problems regarding a difference of opinion.
Actually, I think he respects the though process of differences.
I'd think that Mike has more of a problem with ankle biting.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:08:05
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

I think this group was ruined when they let Netcom get a
newsfeed.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:02:33
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> I think this group was ruined when they let Netcom get a
> newsfeed.

WebTV and AOL ruined the Internet. They should just go back to the days of
DARPA and make us work on IBM 360's again. *

* Am I showing my age?

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:04:17
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:13:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>> I think this group was ruined when they let Netcom get a
>>> newsfeed.
>>
>> WebTV and AOL ruined the Internet. They should just go back to the
>> days of DARPA and make us work on IBM 360's again. *
>>
>> * Am I showing my age?
>
> Have you ever used an 026?

Sadly, I have used keypunches and tape. :-( I started my data
processing life at Sacred Heart University in 1978. I'm older than dirt. In
fact, I still have photos and left over cake from Big Bang.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:32:45
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>>> I think this group was ruined when they let Netcom get a
>>>> newsfeed.
>>> WebTV and AOL ruined the Internet. They should just go back to the
>>> days of DARPA and make us work on IBM 360's again. *
>>>
>>> * Am I showing my age?
>> Have you ever used an 026?
>
>
> Sadly, I have used keypunches and tape. :-( I started my data
> processing life at Sacred Heart University in 1978. I'm older than dirt. In
> fact, I still have photos and left over cake from Big Bang.
>

IBM 026's in my high school Business Information Processing class in '77.

I knew Chad before Chad became popular.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 23:48:23
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Head Shot <HeadShot@thepinkmist.com > wrote:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > I think this group was ruined when they let Netcom get a
: > newsfeed.
:
: WebTV and AOL ruined the Internet.

Newbie. The Internet was already ruined by then. Netcom!

: They should just go back to the days of
: DARPA and make us work on IBM 360's again. *

AMEN.

: * Am I showing my age?

Yes. But that's ok.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:42:28
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:

> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > A decent report. When a certain group of people decided they had to enforce
> > their view of the world here following RAG Atlanta 1, this gruop started to
> > decline. The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
> > by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
> > most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
> > shafts!
>
> Are you hinting that Mike is upset that I am chaing away his customer
> base?
> I never thought of it that way. I just assumed he was the overbearing
> dominatrix type.

He's invested a lot of money in it! GEA won't let him post his sg line for
free...where else is he to go?

Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:21:21
From: annika1980
Subject: Givers vs. Takers

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> > For what it's worth--and I find this fascinating--I'll be teaching about
> Broken Windows in my class over the next few weeks. Among the examples
> I'll be using is RSG, because it is a wonderful example of how this kind
> of thing works.

Too bad you won't be teaching about Broken Records.
You've demonstrated a mastery of that area.
-----------------------

> You may trust him. If I ever see him again, I'm sure I'll be pleasant
> enough to him, but trust him with anything important? After knowing how
> he conducts himself here?

I thought we got along pretty well at last year's RSG-OHIO.
My recollection is that we talked exclusively about golf (clubmaking
and putting mostly), so that shoulda made you happy.

--------------------------
>
> He is what he is here, and if you think that doesn't mean anything, if I
> were you, I'd hold onto my wallet. I'll surely hold onto mine.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this crack, but I do take offense.
Are you implying that I'm out to get something or worse, that I'm a
thief?
If so, fuck you.

There are Givers and Takers in this world and I've always strived to be
a Giver.
I don't take shit, especially from you.
Why don't you turn that mirror on yourself? Are you a Giver or a Taker?
Randy is a Giver. He posts commentary here, hosts RSG events and asks
nothing in return.
Eric "The Hammer" Strulowitz, like him or not, is a huge giver. I've
never had a problem with him in that area. Heck, I even hear that Big
Tex prefers giving, if you know what I mean.

You host a RSG event so that gives you points for being a Giver.
Some might argue, however, that you use RSG to shill your clubs and
your services, so you might not wanna put it to a vote.

As for me and RSG, the only thing I've ever taken from here is
entertainment and a few tournament prizes. OK, lotsa prizes. But these
days, it's all about entertainment and I try to give as much as take in
that area. Yes, I post OT photos from time to time, but I don't try to
sell them thru a link in my sig.
Call me anything you want .... just don't call me a thief.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:06:24
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
>> You may trust him. If I ever see him again, I'm sure I'll be pleasant
>> enough to him, but trust him with anything important? After knowing how
>> he conducts himself here?

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote ...
>
> I thought we got along pretty well at last year's RSG-OHIO.
> My recollection is that we talked exclusively about golf (clubmaking
> and putting mostly), so that shoulda made you happy.

This is precisely where Mike's (and others') argument about how a person's
online persona *is* the individual's real personality falls completely
apart. They always fail to ask the reverse question: Where do you think
the in-person personality comes from, if not from the *real* personality
itself?

It strikes me as far more likely that a person's true personality is
revealed in face-to-face encounters where someone can experience all the
nuances, including facial expressions, tone of voice, mannerisms, eye
contact, etc., etc., etc. None of that is available in a text-only forum.

Methinks some in this group have become so sucked in by the virtual world
that it has practically replaced the real world in their lives and they have
lost sight of the fact that the virtual world provides a very limited window
into a person's soul. That Mike would suggest that it provides something
more than that is simply ludicrous.

Maybe those of us who behave outside the accepted norm, as defined by Mr.
Dalecki, are all a little schitzo. Or maybe some of us just like blowing
off steam here. Or maybe our sense of humor (and decorum) simply fall
decidedly outside the realm in which Mike can relate (or even understand
it). Or maybe it's some combination of all of the above. I really don't
know the reason for the disconnect, but I guess it all comes back to what my
parents taught me -- variety is the spice of life. But I guess to some,
life tastes better served bland -- without spice.

In any case, one thing I know for sure: Those who have annointed themselves
as the judge of others' behavior do so at the risk of appearing too
self-important to those who undoubtedly see through the charade.

For what it's worth, while I have not posted as much golf content here in
recent years, it can be traced to the fact that prior to this year, I've
played a whole lot less golf in recent years. I began playing more
regularly again this year, and the volume of my golf postings went back up a
little. Not as high as in years past, partly because I haven't been working
in the golf world as much, and certainly my golf GAME has provided little to
write home (or to write RSG) about. But when it has, I have.

Finally, I just want to address one last thing that Mike wrote in his
response to me in this thread:

Mike wrote:
>
> For what it's worth--and I find this fascinating--I'll be teaching
> about Broken Windows in my class over the next few weeks.
> Among the examples I'll be using is RSG, because it is a
> wonderful example of how this kind of thing works.
>
> And just like a run-down neighborhood in which people don't
> pick up the trash, don't repair broken windows, don't keep up
> their properties, RSG is no longer what it once was.

I'd like to save that remark and bring it up later, like, say, the weeks
leading up to The Masters, when the golf season will be back in full swing,
the weather will have warmed up for even our northern friends, and the
golf-to-noise ratio will have once again returned to a fairly normal level.
Mike's analogy suggests that a neighborhood that turns bad stays bad. With
RSG, there have always been cyclical ebbs and flows that tracked along with
major developments in the world (or in the golf world). The election is
over. The Repubs will get over it, and once the weather turns warm again
(and we get past Silly Season), the golf content will return. It always
does.

Randy

Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:19:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

Sometimes we notice as people get old they seem to stop caring as much
about social conventions - whatever faults they had when their youth
are no longer moderated as much.

They become themselves - only more so.

That theory could apply to people in situations where they have some
relative anonymity as well - such as here.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:17:13
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Dene wrote:

> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > A decent report. When a certain group of people decided they had to enforce
> > their view of the world here following RAG Atlanta 1, this gruop started to
> > decline. The best posters all left, and we were left with a board dominated
> > by a group of lame ass part time golfers. The best thing about it is that
> > most of them have purchased top of the line custom clubs with TT lite XL
> > shafts! I personally post little to no golf here...if it's going to be
> > confrontation and domination, may as well stick with politics!
>
> Well said, Rob. A well organized clique/mailing list has contributed
> to RSG's perceived decline. However, I'm glad they exist. Many of
> petty participants have quit RSG, choosing to solely interact with like
> minded individuals.....and that's a good thing.
>
> Having said this, I don't want to fully demonize the cliques. RSG has
> a unique feature uncommon to most newsgroups....many of the
> participants have personally met each other, and so it has become
> natural for these friendships to grow, organize, and inadvertantly (or
> in my case, purposely) exclude. Had various RSG outings not occured,
> then you would see a different dynamic here.
>
> Solution.....tolerance, starting with modifying or ignoring the
> charter. Why does RSG have to be solely about golf? Why can't it be a
> 19th hole, where guys/gals routinely discuss their golf games along
> with a host of other subjects? Right now, most yankees can't play dry
> golf, so what's wrong with politics, football, and Anni's fetishes?
>
>
> -Greg

Couldn't agree more! Just don't read "their" posts (for whatever "they" suits
your style), and don't take it seriously! IT's just an exchange of views. and has
no other meaning.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:33:19
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, Mike Dalecki <m...@removeclubdoctor.com > wrote:
> pete z wrote:
> > I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> > good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> > have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> > thanks, and good luck.
> > Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> > ridiculous.
>
> > To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> > of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
> > Pete ZPete, I'm sad that it's come to this. Truth is, I look at RSG less and
> less these days. It's seems to be little more than people shouting at
> each other, with no one listening. It used to be that RSG was about
> golf. Now it seems to be about egos.
>
> Once upon a time, people recognized that the right to swing one's fist
> stopped at another's nose. Further, it used to be the case that people
> were careful in how they waved their arms around, out of concern for
> accidentally popping someone in the beak.
>
> That is, they thought about others before they thought of themselves.
>
> That no longer seems to be the case.
>
> American society--and I'm sure you've noted how little of this is
> promulgated by people outside the US--has in many ways become a
> me-first, selfish type of society. Not everyone is this way, of course,
> but it only takes some to do this. And if no one objects, then the
> boorish behavior of a few becomes the norm. And lord knows, that's what
> RSG is now.
>
> It is too bad that there are those who lack to maturity to understand
> the need for norms, the wisdom to recognize what is appropriate and what
> is not, and the self-control to curb their impulses.
>
> RSG is dead. As one former RSG'er commented, it's become
> Rec.Sport.Government.
>
> It used to be a place where friendships were formed by people who had
> something in common--their love of golf. That common interest gave rise
> to RSG gatherings, and the ability to meet, in person, those with whom
> one had formed a long-distance friendship.
>
> That place, it would appear, is no more.
>
> That's unfortunate, of course. I got a lot out of RSG back when it was
> about golf. It helped honed my love of golf, and taught me many things
> that helped with my improvement. I learned about the mental game (Randy
> Brown put me on to Rotella's book), about chipping (thanks, Bruce
> Newman), and about the swing (thanks, David Laville).
>
> But now, that's all gone. Instead of posting about what unites us--our
> love of golf--people seem compelled to post about what divides us.
>
> And that's a shame.
>
> It seems as if there are those who are bent on destroying what RSG once
> was, who place their political positions on an altar, to which they
> demand others pay homage. Of course, in any religious discussion--which
> is what this is--everybody believes what they believe, and nobody has
> their opinion changed.
>
> Some say this is just normal for what is known as the silly season, but
> in truth, this started far in advance of that. It is intentional,
> initiated and maintained by people who place themselves ahead of the
> group, and who pick fights just to give themselves a forum from which
> they can spout their views.
>
> But in their immoderation, they reveal themselves for what they are.
>
> There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
> something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
> golfers leave, who is left?
>
> I'm a member of a number of mailing lists, many of which were formed and
> populated by RSG'ers and former RSG'ers. The vast majority of those
> people--numbering several dozen--have given up on RSG. In other words,
> those who are insisting that RSG be like a 19th hole are pushing away
> people who came for the golf. Ironic, isn't it?
>
> One final thing: I said, a few years back, that circumstances
> surrounding RSG were reflective of what is known as the Broken Windows
> theory. I argued that OT and SPAM would destroy the group's utility
> w/r/t golf. I was vilified by some for that view, but in the end, I've
> been proven right.
>
> I sure wish I'd been wrong about that.
>
> Mike

Easy Mike,
Aside from legally selling your services and equipment in this not for
prophit (see the usenet FAQ)group nothing has really changed. The
idiots who do all the OT and political crap are not part of the group
but more of a hazard to be avoided as sand on a golfcourse. the silly
part to me is the ot and political crap are damaging while everyones
fear almost hysteria anout golf sales and trading online could have
helped this group be much more about golf on a different level.
(although it might not have been good for your business).I will never
forget being put in RSG hall of shame for selling a driver for 60.
bucks to someone else (you all know this person) and yet mike in the 5
years since how about sharring with the group what your revenue was
from the group alone (RSG). I do not BTW villify or think less of you I
just find it a laugher that you can flaunt the rules that you lament is
killing RSG. And furthermore I watch and enjoy Rsg less then ever. I do
want to see clever quips, stories and shared emotions for a pastime we
all love. Why dont we all try to avoid posts by those (you can easily
ID them by they're screen names) . Like a bully with nobody to fight
with they will get board and look for trouble elsewhere.
Andy

Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:30:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"R&B" wrote:
> > >
> > Never mind. Self-centered people never look in a mirror.
>
>
> Neither do judgemental, holier-than-thou types. Not that I'm accusing
> anyone. I'm just sayin'. :-)
>
> Randy

R&B, you made a lot of good points in your post and I happen to agree
with all of them.

Mike wants to lay the blame for the OT posts (and for his perception
that the newsgroup has devolved) on me. The only credit/blame
(depending on how you look at it) I can take is that perhaps I made it
easier for people to post OT. Some folks (usually the uptight
Republican types like Mike and JVVP) would never post OT until they saw
me and others doing it. We showed them that it was OK to talk about
whatever is own your mind.
Even today these same folks often rant against the OT posts, but
occasionally participate in them themselves.

I think the whole thing boils down to the difference between a
moderated newsgroup and one where information flows freely. Moderated
newsgroups are fine for finding specific information and for those
people who don't mind being told what they can and cannot say.
I think Mike would thrive in a structured group like that, especially
if HE was the moderator.
But I prefer the freedom that this group provides.

Having said all that, here is a totally off-topic photo I took
yesterday from Lookout Mountain, looking over beautiful Pungent
Municipal GC.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/70047094/original

Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:40:39
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On 12-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> Having said all that, here is a totally off-topic photo I took
> yesterday from Lookout Mountain, looking over beautiful Pungent
> Municipal GC.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/70047094/original

Oh how I love the aroma of the treament plant in the morning! ;-)

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:33:12
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

(CLIP)
>
>Having said all that, here is a totally off-topic photo I took
>yesterday from Lookout Mountain, looking over beautiful Pungent
>Municipal GC.
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/70047094/original

One hole on the far side of the water would make this course a killer.
Come to think of it, you'd need two, just to get back. :}

Great look!

--

Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ

"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"

(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)

Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:07:20
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:04:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> >
> But then, it's all about you, isn't it? Which, BTW, was my point.

You're damned straight it is! When I log on here it is all about my
entertainment, just as when you log on it is all about yours. The
difference is that I don't try to regulate your entertainment.
You don't like what's on? .... Change the channel.

-----------------------------
>
> In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
> self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the
> way things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!

I'm OK with that since I happen to like the way things are. Now if we
could drive out the last remaining bitchers and moaners, it would be
perfect.

----------------------------
>
> And for those who say that online persona are different than the real
> person, talk to a psychologist. The online persona IS the real person.
> The one produces the other.

So you really ARE a penis wrinkle?

-----------------------------

> > This probably isn't due to my OT posts or your spamming so much as it
> > is the fact that there are many more sources for golf info available on
> > the net these days.
>
>
> Actually, it has a great deal to do with you.

Aw, you give me too much credit. Maybe you should take a few bows
yourself?

------------------------------

>
> This was a great source for golf information and conversation. People
> left not because there were more sources, but because the value of this
> one declined. The best sources for golf information will not hurt for
> participants. It's only when the value declines that people go elsewhere.

What a load of crap. Attrition will occur naturally when more sources
are available. The posting numbers I provided showed that the numbers
are actually holding up quite well.
It may be true that there are more OT posts these days, but these
threads are the most popular, so what's wrong with that? Thankfully,
this is a free (unmoderated) forum where people get to discuss whatever
they like. The 19th Hole analogy is a good one, and you seem to be
wanting to walk in and tell everybody in the clubhouse that they can
only discuss golf issues. Good luck with that.
I don't accept your premise that the value of this Newsgroup has
declined, even for golf content. Of course, I never gave it much value
in that area in the first place. But even if we accept that some people
have left who used to contribute to the golf talk, we must also
acknowledge that they exercised their choice, not yours and not mine.
More power to them.

As I said, if you want golf content exclusively there are probably much
better sites now available for that. Why not enjoy them instead of
continuing to bitch about this one?

BTW, how bout that Election, huh?

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:37:15
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On 12 Nov 2006 08:04:32 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>You're damned straight it is! When I log on here it is all about my
>entertainment, just as when you log on it is all about yours. The
>difference is that I don't try to regulate your entertainment.
>You don't like what's on? .... Change the channel.
>
Why? I turned the channel to the golf one and fer some reason there
seems to be nothing but politics any time we are within a year of an
American election.
>-----------------------------
>>
>> In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
>> self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the
>> way things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!
>
>I'm OK with that since I happen to like the way things are. Now if we
>could drive out the last remaining bitchers and moaners, it would be
>perfect.
>
>----------------------------
>>
>> And for those who say that online persona are different than the real
>> person, talk to a psychologist. The online persona IS the real person.
>> The one produces the other.
>
>So you really ARE a penis wrinkle?
>
>-----------------------------
>
>> > This probably isn't due to my OT posts or your spamming so much as it
>> > is the fact that there are many more sources for golf info available on
>> > the net these days.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it has a great deal to do with you.
>
>Aw, you give me too much credit. Maybe you should take a few bows
>yourself?
>
>------------------------------
>
>>
>> This was a great source for golf information and conversation. People
>> left not because there were more sources, but because the value of this
>> one declined. The best sources for golf information will not hurt for
>> participants. It's only when the value declines that people go elsewhere.
>
>What a load of crap. Attrition will occur naturally when more sources
>are available. The posting numbers I provided showed that the numbers
>are actually holding up quite well.
>It may be true that there are more OT posts these days, but these
>threads are the most popular, so what's wrong with that?

Why not post about golf in a group that is ya know for golf? Hell your
golf posts are for the most part good reads. You can bash a mean
keyboard and we know ya can churn the stuff out. Maybe not at a RB
level but still.

>Thankfully,
>this is a free (unmoderated) forum where people get to discuss whatever
>they like.

But it seems that it is mainly the bunch that discusses politics that
go and on and on about crap. Ya don't see the amount of OT threads
from any other bunch discussing what ever the fuck they want. Only the
fucking repetitive drivel of the Yankee Political shit. If I saw other
discussions always being discussed I'd buy the unmoderated forum to
discuss what ever they like (they? it should have been I) but you
don't.

Why not start threads in the proper group ya know one that is
designated for that purpose. Haven't looked but I would guess that
there has to be at least one group in Usenet land that is for American
Politics.

>The 19th Hole analogy is a good one, and you seem to be
>wanting to walk in and tell everybody in the clubhouse that they can
>only discuss golf issues. Good luck with that.

Nope I don't want to see a place where golf discussions can not go off
on tangents. Some of the off the golf stuff is great and 'cause it
came from golf that is cool.

What I like to see would be a place where the topics at least started
with some golf related theme. Hell I could even enjoy a enjoy a group
where the odd non golf related thread is started. But the amount of
useless political shit that has to be waded through just makes me want
to stay away. Yep my choice as is voicing my opinion on the subject. I
could even live with a political thread being started and just used
for that purpose. But gazillions of threads starting with my guys are
god and your guys are fucking scum is just idiotic.

Just curious but do you go to the political groups and talk golf?

>I don't accept your premise that the value of this Newsgroup has
>declined, even for golf content. Of course, I never gave it much value
>in that area in the first place.

I did. Not for instruction but the general golf talk. I enjoy reading
course reviews, group get together stuff, equipment talk, and stories
about the game of golf.

> But even if we accept that some people
>have left who used to contribute to the golf talk, we must also
>acknowledge that they exercised their choice, not yours and not mine.
>More power to them.
>
>As I said, if you want golf content exclusively there are probably much
>better sites now available for that.

If you want to discuss politics I am sure that there are probably much
better sites now available for that.

> Why not enjoy them instead of continuing to bitch about this one?

'cause I can. The biggest reason I don't go to other sites is well
because they are sites. I don't do the moderator thing or very little
of it. Usenet allows people to show their true colours. It requires
the writer to ask the questions of whether it is right or not to post
the message to this group. Now some are excused because they lack
brain cells others...

Date: 13 Nov 2006 16:46:56
From: Chris
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Actually, isn't the idea that this is a newgroup set up to discuss golf the
best way to "regulate" the entertainment? There are thousands of newgroups
and each has a specific topic, which is assumed to be the content of that
newsgroup. Everyone is free to discuss any topic they want, but they should
go to the right group to do it.

I tend to agree with Mike's original post and I also used to be here a lot
more, and post a lot more. Now I check the topics every couple weeks and
I'm tired of scrolling thru 3000 OT posts to see if something golf related
is of interest...and usually a golf topic is derailed after a few posts
anyway. I don't think this will ever change. I honestly don't think this
group would have been any different today if the MEOW'ers had overtaken it a
few years back. At least they sometimes mentioned golf in their off-topic
ramblings.
Annika, why should we change the channel if we're tuning in to a golf forum
for golf content? Shouldn't the OT content folks change their channel to
find a forum that is on topic to what they want to talk about? I'm also
interested in boating and fishing but I don't come here to discuss it and I
wouldn't be shocked if others here didn't want to hear about it. Why are
you?

Chris

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163347471.942296.297590@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> You're damned straight it is! When I log on here it is all about my
> entertainment, just as when you log on it is all about yours. The
> difference is that I don't try to regulate your entertainment.
> You don't like what's on? .... Change the channel.
>

Date: 17 Nov 2006 22:09:28
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>> But then, it's all about you, isn't it? Which, BTW, was my point.
>
> You're damned straight it is! When I log on here it is all about my
> entertainment, just as when you log on it is all about yours. The
> difference is that I don't try to regulate your entertainment.
> You don't like what's on? .... Change the channel.

I know you're putting on that attitude because you want to bring out
energy from the other party. You're trolling, always. It must be a
very empty existance to have that compulsion. I'm proud to say I do
have other channels to change to.

> -----------------------------
>> In fact, if I were to point my finger at the most egregious example of a
>> self-centered, immature poster whose behavior is much to blame for the
>> way things are, well, guess what? You'd be him!
>
> I'm OK with that since I happen to like the way things are. Now if we
> could drive out the last remaining bitchers and moaners, it would be
> perfect.

So basically you think you're got the semblance of the perfect online
club, and if it weren't for the "ad hominem" attacks against you and the
other off-topic trolls, it would be perfect? Wow, welcome to Bushwood.
The smell of old spice and prunes is strong with you. If you were
all you think you are, why haven't you carved out a club in the
photography groups? Oh, I forgot - you're only a big fish when you're
in a small bowl.

It would be deliciously ironic if a spam bot to flood this group and
lock it up good. After all, there really isn't any golf content that
would get lost, just you fleas. The fact that this group

Considering you're twice my age, and 2x my weight, you really have a
childish attitude. It's obvious that you live for the negative
attention you troll up here, and frankly you prove that Democrats can be
the most unoriginal, least insightful, and most vocal babies on the
planet. While you try so hard to draw the serious people into looking
silly, the fact is that you always start with something idiotic, and you
try and pull others into your pool of self-defecation. Maybe you don't
see it, but it's pretty obvious to me. The members of that club
certainly are consistent in behavior.

You also have the sexual preferences of a 12 year old, which is
sickening in its own right.

But you're not the only one; there are others. You cling together,
playfight while you stroke your cock under your desks. Whee! The
excitement it must be. Boy I wish I could be in that fight club, but
alas, I have a life. I come back here from time to time, pick a bit of
the actual golf content, but eventually leave when I realize what a
bunch of crap 90% of this group is.

Plonk, you worthless old fat fuck. Go voyeur the neighbor's
flat-chested 11 year old daughter while stroking your cock.

Dave

Date: 12 Nov 2006 07:44:31
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Nov 11, 3:45 am, "pete z" <pz0...@aol.com > wrote:
> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> thanks, and good luck.
> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> ridiculous.
>
> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
> Pete Z

Pete,
Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Andy

Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:12:21
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Pete, do the letters F O mean anything to you?

Go wash your vagina, cream puff.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:10:14
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

In article <1163234735.752264.295690@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >
"pete z" <pz0326@aol.com > wrote:

Actually, this whole thread is a little OT isn't it?

Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:58:55
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

In article <1163234735.752264.295690@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >
"pete z" <pz0326@aol.com > wrote:
>
> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> thanks, and good luck.
> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> ridiculous.
>
> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>
> Pete Z

We're kind of wondering the same thing about the country.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:35:12
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"R&B" wrote:
> "Mike Dalecki" <mike@dalecki.net> wrote
> >
I'm just sayin'. :-)
>
> Randy

Holy crap! Is the concept of snipping lost on you man??!!

Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:33:03
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

David Sneddon wrote:
> Mike Dalecki wrote:
>
> > There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
> > something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
> > golfers leave, who is left?
>
> Yes this group is like the 19th hole - trouble is these days, very few
> are bothering to play the first 18.
>
> Good post, Mike.
>
>
> David

The problem has rather become that most people think that we care about
the crap out of their mouths. This NG has become about Bush's wrongs,
sexual orientation, drunken buffoonery and constant one upmanship.
There is a bit of pendantic verbosity also with a couple of prolific
posters that think that they can hold my attention past 5 lines. What
a snoozefest.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:47:43
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Gordo" <golfzlf@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163338383.428182.120070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> The problem has rather become that most people think that we care about
> the crap out of their mouths. This NG has become about Bush's wrongs,
> sexual orientation, drunken buffoonery and constant one upmanship.
> There is a bit of pendantic verbosity also with a couple of prolific
> posters that think that they can hold my attention past 5 lines. What
> a snoozefest.

They probably don't care whether they've held your attention. That's the
beauty of Usenet. Each user can easily filter out what is noise to them.
Some people think of "what's gone wrong with this newsgroup is..." posts as
noise, and they are free to ignore them if they wish.

Scott

Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:27:33
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Carbon wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:48:06 -0500, "R&B" wrote:
>
> > Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
> > certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to
> > punch someone out in person.
>
> Speaking of blowing off steam, I read somewhere recently that the
> incidence of rape has gone way down in recent years, primarily (it is
> thought) because the wide availability of porn on the internet.
>
> I often participate in these admittedly pointless threads. I fully
> understand that Larry is a fraud and a troll, and that many of the other
> participants are either too stunned or too self-absorbed to think about
> the posts they're responding to. But I don't really care. I like to write,
> and I find all this backing and forthing helps clarify my own thoughts.
> And I enjoy reading the stuff from the better writers who post here.
>
> Maybe all this political crap does function like porn. I never talk about
> politics or religion anywhere else.

That's my experience too. I like the entertainment and stimulation RSG
provides. As long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm in.

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:04:32
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On 11 Nov 2006 23:27:33 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>
>Carbon wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:48:06 -0500, "R&B" wrote:
>>
>> > Mike: This just in: It's called blowing off steam. It's healthy. It's
>> > certainly much healthier to do it here in the virtual world than to
>> > punch someone out in person.
>>
>> Speaking of blowing off steam, I read somewhere recently that the
>> incidence of rape has gone way down in recent years, primarily (it is
>> thought) because the wide availability of porn on the internet.
>>
>> I often participate in these admittedly pointless threads. I fully
>> understand that Larry is a fraud and a troll, and that many of the other
>> participants are either too stunned or too self-absorbed to think about
>> the posts they're responding to. But I don't really care. I like to write,
>> and I find all this backing and forthing helps clarify my own thoughts.
>> And I enjoy reading the stuff from the better writers who post here.
>>
>> Maybe all this political crap does function like porn. I never talk about
>> politics or religion anywhere else.
>
>That's my experience too. I like the entertainment and stimulation RSG
>provides. As long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm in.

Hey again thanks for sharing you meaningless crap about politics in
the states.

Fuck I gotta find a non moderated group that likes golf. It sure
doesn't seem to be here anymore.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:24:46
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> American society--and I'm sure you've noted how little of this is
> promulgated by people outside the US--has in many ways become a
> me-first, selfish type of society. Not everyone is this way, of course,
> but it only takes some to do this. And if no one objects, then the
> boorish behavior of a few becomes the norm. And lord knows, that's what
> RSG is now.
>
> It is too bad that there are those who lack to maturity to understand
> the need for norms, the wisdom to recognize what is appropriate and what
> is not, and the self-control to curb their impulses.

Not sure if I'm on the same track, but it made me think of a social
observation of my own: People have super-high expectations of
others, but their standards regarding their own behavior or performance
is the complete opposite, there's always an excuse or reason to cut
their own self slack. I've been thinking about this a few years now,
and couldn't put my finger on it- is it an over 40 thing?? as I'm just
42 and thought it a coincidence that I only find it now. Or is it
American culture- like Beavis and Butthead or Bart Simpson rubbing off
on people and bleeding into real life?

I can't imagine what it is like being an American that is divorced or
looking being, say, over 35. Male or female, people don't seem to
tolerate ANYTHING from others- you wipe your nose wrong or some other
silly thing and it's a total faux pas, while their own peculiarities
are perfectly acceptable. Is it just me only noticing it now? Deep
down I know this has to be true as long as there have been people on
the earth, but it just seems WAY OTT now.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:54:20
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:

>
> Pete, I'm sad that it's come to this. Truth is, I look at RSG less and
> less these days.

Halleluah!

<Whine snipped >

> It used to be a place where friendships were formed by people who had
> something in common--their love of golf. That common interest gave rise
> to RSG gatherings, and the ability to meet, in person, those with whom
> one had formed a long-distance friendship.
>
> That place, it would appear, is no more.

Uh....these friendships are part of the problem, but to realize these
dynamics would require some personal insight on your part.

Fat chance (no pun intended).

> That's unfortunate, of course. I got a lot out of RSG back when it was
> about golf. It helped honed my love of golf, and taught me many things
> that helped with my improvement. I learned about the mental game (Randy
> Brown put me on to Rotella's book), about chipping (thanks, Bruce
> Newman), and about the swing (thanks, David Laville).
>
> But now, that's all gone. Instead of posting about what unites us--our
> love of golf--people seem compelled to post about what divides us.

No it's not. There are good people posting about golf right now. Read
anything TNigh has posted. Doubt it....he's not in one of your
circles, is he?

> And that's a shame.
>
> It seems as if there are those who are bent on destroying what RSG once
> was, who place their political positions on an altar, to which they
> demand others pay homage. Of course, in any religious discussion--which
> is what this is--everybody believes what they believe, and nobody has
> their opinion changed.

> Some say this is just normal for what is known as the silly season, but
> in truth, this started far in advance of that. It is intentional,
> initiated and maintained by people who place themselves ahead of the
> group, and who pick fights just to give themselves a forum from which
> they can spout their views.
>
> But in their immoderation, they reveal themselves for what they are.

A little Wisconsin cheese with that whine please.

> There are some who say RSG is like a 19th hole, but they're missing
> something quite important: The people who are walking out. If the
> golfers leave, who is left?

New golfers, new ideas, who will not have to put up with a petty pack
of net nannies like yourself.

> I'm a member of a number of mailing lists, many of which were formed and
> populated by RSG'ers and former RSG'ers. The vast majority of those
> people--numbering several dozen--have given up on RSG. In other words,
> those who are insisting that RSG be like a 19th hole are pushing away
> people who came for the golf. Ironic, isn't it?

Halleluah!

> One final thing: I said, a few years back, that circumstances
> surrounding RSG were reflective of what is known as the Broken Windows
> theory. I argued that OT and SPAM would destroy the group's utility
> w/r/t golf. I was vilified by some for that view, but in the end, I've
> been proven right.

Spoken from the most obvious spammer RSG has ever endured. Why don't
you admit your real reasons for sticking around.....$$$$.

> I sure wish I'd been wrong about that.

Psssst. RSG is not dead. It's changing without your permission.

> Mike

Where is your spam signature???

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:10:15
From: Bear
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On 11 Nov 2006 22:54:20 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>
>Where is your spam signature???
>
>-Greg

Fuck are you one lame one trick pony.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 12 Nov 2006 21:48:43
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

glfnaz wrote:
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163388364.861252.142750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> I find it curious that you don't point out the lack of agreement
> >> among c-list members in this thread and admit that your charges
> >> of cronyism have been waaaaaaay overheated.
> >
> > Actually, it was a suspicion of mine about this particular situation.
> > Thanks for confirming it now as fact. Nice to see independent thinking
> > among y'all.
>
> I've disagreed with Mike on issues here that Mike feels are important.
> Static vs. Dynamic clubfitting as an example.
> Mike and I have no problems regarding a difference of opinion.
> Actually, I think he respects the though process of differences.
> I'd think that Mike has more of a problem with ankle biting.

Show me an example where he actually considered your opinion, then
modified his initial opinion, about this subject or any other.

Ankle biting is a perfect description of his OP within this thread.
Unfortunately for him, he bit Annika's ankle. Bad decision.

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 23:01:44
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163396923.474519.67530@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> glfnaz wrote:
>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163388364.861252.142750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> >> I find it curious that you don't point out the lack of agreement
>> >> among c-list members in this thread and admit that your charges
>> >> of cronyism have been waaaaaaay overheated.
>> >
>> > Actually, it was a suspicion of mine about this particular situation.
>> > Thanks for confirming it now as fact. Nice to see independent thinking
>> > among y'all.
>>
>> I've disagreed with Mike on issues here that Mike feels are important.
>> Static vs. Dynamic clubfitting as an example.
>> Mike and I have no problems regarding a difference of opinion.
>> Actually, I think he respects the though process of differences.
>> I'd think that Mike has more of a problem with ankle biting.
>
> Show me an example where he actually considered your opinion, then
> modified his initial opinion, about this subject or any other.
>
> Ankle biting is a perfect description of his OP within this thread.
> Unfortunately for him, he bit Annika's ankle. Bad decision.
>
> -Greg
>

You know as well as I that Mike's intention was to state that RSG should be
a place for golf discussion pursuant to it's original charter.

Any of us could find 3 yahoos with computers and ask thenm to flood any
Usenet Newsgrooup with OT crap, and the result would be that the Newsgroup
would come to it's knees.
Mike's passionate that such a result not happen at RSG.

I'd guess that you aren't sure that it wouldn't matter.
I'd prefer that you be passionate one way or the other.
I won't care which side you're on, just don't be in the middle and pretend
it's not an issue.
That'd be beneath you. Take a stand.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 21:44:40
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

S McFarlane wrote:
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163393420.639544.14240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Defensive?? Nausea is a more accurate discriptor.
> >
>
> Is that just Usenet bravado, or has Mike really done something to you to
> make him a blood enemy? Maybe in person you would have this conversation
> about him while he was still in the room, but it's my experience that people
> are a lot more agressive online than in real life.
>
> I'm naive, so I never really thought that being an asshole online was
> somehow magically different than being one in the world. I'm not saying
> that you are being an ass. Just wondering if the nature of the forum causes
> you to deal with Mike differently than you would in the real world, and
> whether the difference in online interactions and real world ones somehow
> justify the difference in behavior. It seems to me the only meaningful
> difference is consequences. There really ain't any, especially if you post
> anon.
>
> Scott

I've never gotten along with imperious, pompous people in real world.
Fortunately, I've not encountered many. When I have, they hear about
it from me. I've always been outspoken.

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 20:50:20
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:09:53 -0800, Dene wrote:
>
> > Hopefuly, he's doesn't deal with his adolescent children in the same,
> > imperious fashion.
>
> Ok. I think we've latched onto something, your feeling that Mike is
> imperious. He does have a somewhat formal writing style, but on the other
> hand he has spent a lot of time in college learning to write that way. I'm
> going to get flamed for this, but I'll say it anyway: he's smart. Some
> people are. He's not putting on airs. He thinks the way he writes.

Why would acknowledging his intelligence get you flamed? The issue is
how Mike views himself in relation to other people, particularily those
who dare to disagree. Imperious and pompous.

> Have you ever wondered why he makes you feel so defensive?

Defensive?? Nausea is a more accurate discriptor.

-Greg

Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:23:20
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163393420.639544.14240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Defensive?? Nausea is a more accurate discriptor.
>

Is that just Usenet bravado, or has Mike really done something to you to
make him a blood enemy? Maybe in person you would have this conversation
about him while he was still in the room, but it's my experience that people
are a lot more agressive online than in real life.

I'm naive, so I never really thought that being an asshole online was
somehow magically different than being one in the world. I'm not saying
that you are being an ass. Just wondering if the nature of the forum causes
you to deal with Mike differently than you would in the real world, and
whether the difference in online interactions and real world ones somehow
justify the difference in behavior. It seems to me the only meaningful
difference is consequences. There really ain't any, especially if you post
anon.

Scott

Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:52:15
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> I visit a wide variety of groups, and have for the better
> part of 10 years. Every single one of them has suffered similar
> histories. Some took longer than others, but virtually all of them
> followed the same pattern of suffering through OT posts and then
> a general decline in participation.

Dalecki would probably blame you for that since you seem to be the
common denominator.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:14:55
From: Noons
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

pete z wrote:

> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> ridiculous.

no.
it's rsg....

> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> of you fools, get a frigging life.

aww, ain't it sweet to see the good old "club" falling apart?
Ah well, nothing like a good dose of reality.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:53:28
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

On Nov 12, 7:29 pm, "Head Shot" <HeadS...@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
> Ben. wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 6:37 pm, "Head Shot" <HeadS...@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
> >> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> >>> In any event, the issue to me becomes how much am I going to work
> >>> for the sake of my house?
>
> >> Keep flipping those burgers. The single-wide should be paid off by
> >> the time you hit 70.
>
> > Fuck off, newb.I bet you make lots of friends. I can just tell - you have that way with
> people.
> </sarcasm>

Funny, Newb, as I was just thinking what with your complete lack of
golf content in a golf newsgroup, you must be a pretty lonely guy
yourself...Usenet aside.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 21:12:57
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

Ben. wrote:
> Funny, Newb, as I was just thinking what with your complete lack of
> golf content in a golf newsgroup, you must be a pretty lonely guy
> yourself...Usenet aside.

Projection noted.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:15:55
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

On Nov 12, 6:37 pm, "Head Shot" <HeadS...@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > In any event, the issue to me becomes how much am I going to work for
> > the sake of my house?

> Keep flipping those burgers. The single-wide should be paid off by the time
> you hit 70.

Fuck off, newb. Everyone here knows the prof works at a college...and
is already 70.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 20:29:55
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

Ben. wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:37 pm, "Head Shot" <HeadS...@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>>> In any event, the issue to me becomes how much am I going to work
>>> for the sake of my house?
>
>> Keep flipping those burgers. The single-wide should be paid off by
>> the time you hit 70.
>
> Fuck off, newb.

I bet you make lots of friends. I can just tell - you have that way with
people.
</sarcasm >

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:13:12
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Jack Hollis wrote:

> Those were the days. I remember when I thought I was hot shit because
> I had a 14.4K modem with an internal phone jack. The first time I
> connected to the Reuters Sports desk in England and got up to the
> minute soccer scores I thought it was a miracle.

I remember paying $3000 of 1990 money for my 286/10 with a VGA monitor
and a dot matrix printer.

I'd love to have the 3k back.

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:09:53
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"R&B" wrote:
> You could have summed up everything you said here with these words:
>
> I was right, you were wrong, and the reason this is so is because I say it
> is.
>
> There, I said it for you.
>
> And I repeat it back at you.
>
> That saves everyone a lot of trouble.
>
> Randy

Hopefuly, he's doesn't deal with his adolescent children in the same,
imperious fashion.

-Greg

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:40:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it!

bill-o wrote:
> On 12-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is not my point at all. It was an illustration of an argument that
> > some people seem unable to grasp -- that all taxable purchases take a
> > smaller bite, percentage-wise, out of a wealthy person's income than a
> > poor person's.
>
> That is elementry math, not a point.

And when people lose arguments but don't want to admit it, they resort
to semantic nit-picking.
>
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 04:45:34
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it!

On 12-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> And when people lose arguments but don't want to admit it, they resort
> to semantic nit-picking.

Lose? I'm not here to win or lose. You still haven't told me why you're
obsessed with progressive vs. regressive taxes?

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:05:04
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Chris Bellomy wrote:

>
> I think it never was what it once was, at least not since 95%
> of the posts came from the .edu and .gov domains. (Goddam
> netcom lusers!)
>
> I also think that you're trying to reverse the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics a bit here, which simply doesn't work.
>
> Topic drift is a natural behavior among people who know each
> other, and it happens everywhere, not even just in Usenet. I
> would suggest that if your interest in rsg is purely about the
> golf, be sure to make liberal use of your killfile. If it's also
> about the people in rsg, be prepared to accept some topic drift.
>
> As for the political threads, they'll die down soon, for the
> most part.
>
> As for the "Quit Ruining RSG" threads, they *never* die.

I find it curious that Dullecki doesn't have the nerve to call you out
for OT participation. You post about golf less than Annika, though you
probably have me beat.

FWIW, I suspect you have adopted the idea of RSG being a 19th hole and
thus remain open to discussing all kinds of topics. To me, that's a
good thing....far better than being anal about an obsolete charter.

-Greg

Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:47:29
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
:
: >
: > I think it never was what it once was, at least not since 95%
: > of the posts came from the .edu and .gov domains. (Goddam
: > netcom lusers!)
: >
: > I also think that you're trying to reverse the Second Law of
: > Thermodynamics a bit here, which simply doesn't work.
: >
: > Topic drift is a natural behavior among people who know each
: > other, and it happens everywhere, not even just in Usenet. I
: > would suggest that if your interest in rsg is purely about the
: > golf, be sure to make liberal use of your killfile. If it's also
: > about the people in rsg, be prepared to accept some topic drift.
: >
: > As for the political threads, they'll die down soon, for the
: > most part.
: >
: > As for the "Quit Ruining RSG" threads, they *never* die.
:
: I find it curious that Dullecki doesn't have the nerve to call you out
: for OT participation. You post about golf less than Annika, though you
: probably have me beat.

I find it curious that you don't point out the lack of agreement
among c-list members in this thread and admit that your charges
of cronyism have been waaaaaaay overheated.

: FWIW, I suspect you have adopted the idea of RSG being a 19th hole and
: thus remain open to discussing all kinds of topics. To me, that's a
: good thing....far better than being anal about an obsolete charter.

I believe in moderation in all things. This place should be mostly
about golf. Some meta is ok. Some politics is ok. Golf is the glue,
though.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:08:38
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

annika1980 wrote:

> Mike Dalecki wrote:
> > > For what it's worth--and I find this fascinating--I'll be teaching about
> > Broken Windows in my class over the next few weeks. Among the examples
> > I'll be using is RSG, because it is a wonderful example of how this kind
> > of thing works.
>
> Too bad you won't be teaching about Broken Records.
> You've demonstrated a mastery of that area.

I'm with you on the giver/taker thing, but it'll take a lot to get me to be much
of a giver to RSG again, and I suspect the same holds true for Eric.

The broken windows thing is a real window into character though. I think more
like Thoreau than Dalecki when it comes to such issues. For some reason I find
Thoreau to be a more credible philosopher and social commentator. JMHO though. I
am also a follower of Christian teachings on such issues. In both cases the
basic philosophy isw antimaterialistic. Thoreau makes direct references to one
being a slave to their possessions. We don't have the actual words of Jesus,
only what the Romans have allowed through, but the idea that you can serve your
wealth or your God; period...no halfway speaks for itself.

In any event, the issue to me becomes how much am I going to work for the sake
of my house? How much will I let my furniture limit my life...that's Thoreau.
Christ is not so conciliatory. It's an all or nothing thing. Whatever you have
that you allocate to your own comfort is something you deny to others in need.
The choice is yours, and you are making the choice between your God and your
wealth every time you do it! Better to leave the window broken and help another
in need than to fix the window! Either you look to serving your own creature
comforts or you look to helping others. The comfortable, well kept large home is
a broken window in and of itself. It not only reflects your lack of concern for
those who are in need (in the Christian sense), but you are a slave to it in the
Thoreauian sense!

Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:37:47
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Givers vs. Takers

Robert Hamilton wrote:
> In any event, the issue to me becomes how much am I going to work for
> the sake of my house?

Keep flipping those burgers. The single-wide should be paid off by the time
you hit 70.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 12 Nov 2006 12:16:06
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Bear wrote:

> >Solution.....tolerance, starting with modifying or ignoring the
> >charter. Why does RSG have to be solely about golf? Why can't it be a
> >19th hole, where guys/gals routinely discuss their golf games along
> >with a host of other subjects? Right now, most yankees can't play dry
> >golf, so what's wrong with politics, football, and Anni's fetishes?
> >
>
> Ok great. So what do you think Harper's next move will be? Do you
> think that he has the ability to win a majority or do you think that
> the Liberal party will find a leader who will take him down?
>
> How about them LIons. Gotta believe that they will take the green
> 'Riders move on to the Grey Cup. Who do you like coming out of the
> east?

I don't have an opinion about either subject. More importantly, I have
no problem with you asking or somebody responding.

-Greg

Date: 13 Nov 2006 10:13:05
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
<I'm a snipper >
>
> I see no point to talking about my golf game, or expressing my views on golf for
> the core of trolls that live here. Like Greg, I post here for the fun of it. You,
> for example, taught a well known self proclaimed expert on clubmaking here how to
> make clubs. You have made clubs professionally for one of the most repected
> clubmakers out there, yet you have never pontificated on anything, you don't
> "correct" people and you don't trash people because they don't follow your vaunted
> "advice". I would love it if someone like Tom Wishon posted here on clubmaking as
> an anon, just to see the response of the regulars. At least RSG regular would have
> a lot of trouble with someone trying to "establish himself" as a "clubmaking
> expert" here!

Now, you've made me blush! Besides that, I'm much to modest!

Get on out here, and let's play some golf.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 08:30:22
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Carbon wrote:

> I've never met him, nor you, and I tune out all the boring c-list crap.
> But personally I have never gotten the feeling that he was issuing edicts.
> He will say things like, I am right because... and then will list a bunch
> of reasons why he believes it. Maybe if he said I believe I'm right, or
> put it in what-if form, or whatever, you guys wouldn't get so wound up.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he'd just reject another viewpoint just
> because it differs from his own. Have you tried disagreeing with the
> reasons instead of attacking the person?

Yes. Several times. It's an exercise of futility.

> Again, maybe I'm wrong. The only reason I posted in this thread is because
> you attacked his signature, which in my opinion is total bullshit. A
> signature like his has been the acceptable convention on Usenet since the
> beginning of Usenet. The only people who ever flame him over it are those
> with a pre-existing beef.

It's time to change that rule.

-Greg

Date: 13 Nov 2006 08:27:14
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

glfnaz wrote:
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163401250.555005.23160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > I got a question for you Brad. You're a member of the C-list. You
> > fellas talk about all kind of issues, yet you criticize those who
> > exercise the same freedom within this forum.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > -Greg
>
> I'm not sure I criticised anyone. I didn't criticise you, I suggested what I
> felt Mike's position was.
> You've taken a stand, and that's fine.
> I disagree and here's why. The RSG group has a Charter. Like the one it has
> or not, it has one. It says it's for golf discussion. You wouldn't go into a
> Christian Church and try and persuade the members to have a flea market in
> the assmbly area on Sundays would you? Of course not, because it doesn't
> belong in a place that was designed for worship.

No....but it would be appropriate to modify the constitution of such a
church if the majority wanted it. I think most regulars don't care
about the charter. It should be informally ignored or formally
modified to reflect more a 19th hole atmosphere, which is what RSG has
evolved too.

> A private discussion list among friends is designed for open discussion
> among friends. Until it sets rules of topics, it's a free for all. No secret
> there, you probably are a member of one.

No such list...been there...done that.

-Greg

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:30:37
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
[snip]
> > This probably isn't due to my OT posts or your spamming so much as it
> > is the fact that there are many more sources for golf info available on
> > the net these days.
>
>
> Actually, it has a great deal to do with you.
>
> This was a great source for golf information and conversation. People
> left not because there were more sources, but because the value of this
> one declined. The best sources for golf information will not hurt for
> participants. It's only when the value declines that people go elsewhere.
[snip]

This theory of yours might hold water, except that it ignores a
larger context. USENET in general has gone the same way as
this group. I visit a wide variety of groups, and have for the better
part of 10 years. Every single one of them has suffered similar
histories. Some took longer than others, but virtually all of them
followed the same pattern of suffering through OT posts and then
a general decline in participation.

And I've seen all the theories such as yours. But if I may I
can suggest an alternative explanation. USENET groups have
passed their time. USENET goes way back before the World
Wide Web. The people who found it useful have passed on
for a wide variety of reasons, and the younger or newer crowds
find other venues more useful. Newsgroups, a bit like
magazines, or country clubs, need new members to keep things
moving forward. There is little "new blood" in RSG, or most
of the other newsgroups. So the same cast of characters keep
discussing the same topics with each other with the predictable
outcome. It's the dinner party that never ends.

Around here, several golf/country clubs are falling on hard
times. One has gone belly up already. Another is under
reorganization. There are many reasons but among them is
that they can't get new members. People don't want/need
what they have to offer and the "old" members don't
play/use the facility much so it begins to become dormant
and uninviting. The was nothing "wrong" with the club. Time
just moved on and they lost their purpose and ability to
continue to attract new members.

Sometimes broken windows are a symptom of larger
processes, not the cause. Ghost towns become so
because they loose their purpose, not because someone
forgot to fix a window.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 13 Nov 2006 03:34:32
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

glfnaz wrote:
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1163396923.474519.67530@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > glfnaz wrote:
> >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1163388364.861252.142750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> >> >> I find it curious that you don't point out the lack of agreement
> >> >> among c-list members in this thread and admit that your charges
> >> >> of cronyism have been waaaaaaay overheated.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, it was a suspicion of mine about this particular situation.
> >> > Thanks for confirming it now as fact. Nice to see independent thinking
> >> > among y'all.
> >>
> >> I've disagreed with Mike on issues here that Mike feels are important.
> >> Static vs. Dynamic clubfitting as an example.
> >> Mike and I have no problems regarding a difference of opinion.
> >> Actually, I think he respects the though process of differences.
> >> I'd think that Mike has more of a problem with ankle biting.
> >
> > Show me an example where he actually considered your opinion, then
> > modified his initial opinion, about this subject or any other.
> >
> > Ankle biting is a perfect description of his OP within this thread.
> > Unfortunately for him, he bit Annika's ankle. Bad decision.
> >
> > -Greg
> >
>
> You know as well as I that Mike's intention was to state that RSG should be
> a place for golf discussion pursuant to it's original charter.

Perhaps original charter, but an unmoderated newsgroup is just that,
unmoderated.

> Any of us could find 3 yahoos with computers and ask thenm to flood any
> Usenet Newsgrooup with OT crap, and the result would be that the Newsgroup
> would come to it's knees.
> Mike's passionate that such a result not happen at RSG.

I've been considering a lot of things as it pertains to RSG for quite
some time. Tilting at windmills aside, there are a lot of people here
that have been here for some time. More passion is put in to personal
attacks and screaming about the OT content. It seems that no one wants
to remain above the fray. I know, I've done more than my share of
sniping. Rather than a few getting 'holier than thou' attitudes, why
doesn't everyone just try to post what they're going to post. If one
doesn't like that, then they don't have to read. If the purpose of
responding in a post is just to inflame, just move on! Lot's of the
trolls will disappear back under the bridge if that's done I think.
>
> I'd guess that you aren't sure that it wouldn't matter.
> I'd prefer that you be passionate one way or the other.
> I won't care which side you're on, just don't be in the middle and pretend
> it's not an issue.
> That'd be beneath you. Take a stand.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:35:58
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"R&B" wrote:
> Almost all flame wars in RSG (and elsewhere, so far as I can tell) stem from
> warring factions telling the other how to behave, and the other side
> resisting. It's never enough to simply disagree on ideas -- the point at
> which a debate evolves into a flame war is when one side resorts to telling
> the other person how to argue his case or how to behave.

The crux.

Along with irony from the outraged opposer who lays down his own
behavioral guidelines.

Date: 12 Nov 2006 23:00:50
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

glfnaz wrote:
>
> You know as well as I that Mike's intention was to state that RSG should be
> a place for golf discussion pursuant to it's original charter.

He has a vested interest. $$$$$$$

> Any of us could find 3 yahoos with computers and ask thenm to flood any
> Usenet Newsgrooup with OT crap, and the result would be that the Newsgroup
> would come to it's knees.
> Mike's passionate that such a result not happen at RSG.

I don't think RSG is in any danger of this. Virtually all the posters
love the game of golf, preferring to discuss it more than any subject.
But....we're all diversified people. I prefer discussing politics,
sports, religion with people I'm familar with. RSG is one of those
venues. I think it's absurd to join a bunch of newsgroups which
reflect my various interests. This one suffices.

> I'd guess that you aren't sure that it wouldn't matter.
> I'd prefer that you be passionate one way or the other.
> I won't care which side you're on, just don't be in the middle and pretend
> it's not an issue.
> That'd be beneath you. Take a stand.

Take a stand?? Read what I've written and then tell me that I haven't
taken a stand. In case it's not clear, my stand is to dump the charter
(formally or informally) and let this unmoderated group go in whatever
direction it and it's participants choose. I believe in personal
choice, which means it's my sole responsibility to choose what I
read.....not Mike's or any other participant.

If this is not to Mike's liking, then he and like-minded individuals
can talk soley about golf within the C-list, or their own newsgroup.
(but that would limit his marketing, wouldn't it?)

I got a question for you Brad. You're a member of the C-list. You
fellas talk about all kind of issues, yet you criticize those who
exercise the same freedom within this forum.

Why?

-Greg

Date: 13 Nov 2006 08:20:37
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1163401250.555005.23160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I got a question for you Brad. You're a member of the C-list. You
> fellas talk about all kind of issues, yet you criticize those who
> exercise the same freedom within this forum.
>
> Why?
>
> -Greg

I'm not sure I criticised anyone. I didn't criticise you, I suggested what I
felt Mike's position was.
You've taken a stand, and that's fine.
I disagree and here's why. The RSG group has a Charter. Like the one it has
or not, it has one. It says it's for golf discussion. You wouldn't go into a
Christian Church and try and persuade the members to have a flea market in
the assmbly area on Sundays would you? Of course not, because it doesn't
belong in a place that was designed for worship.
A private discussion list among friends is designed for open discussion
among friends. Until it sets rules of topics, it's a free for all. No secret
there, you probably are a member of one.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 22:13:42
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

On Nov 11, 2:45 am, "pete z" <pz0...@aol.com > wrote:
> I took a couple of years off from this group, but now I am gone for
> good. Mike, JeffC and others who
> have helped me get started with clubmaking and equipment questions,
> thanks, and good luck.
> Seeing 10 of the first 11 posts be about football and politics is
> ridiculous.
>
> To all the real RSG'ers, good lies, and fairways and greens. The rest
> of you fools, get a frigging life.
>

I say it's all the damned fools who don't know how
to use apostrophes!

Date: 13 Nov 2006 21:08:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Dene wrote:
>
> Uh.....sorry to put in turd in your punchbowl but....uh.....there was
> some controversy in Dec. '05, which led to all kind of yo-yo's coming
> out of the woodwork. (Anybody seen Stemmer lately).
>
> Anyway....you need to consider that in your statistical analysis.
>

Those are my damn stats and I'll by-God use them any way I like!

Date: 13 Nov 2006 20:41:18
From: Herbert
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:
> Herbert wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >
> > > I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the regular posters don't
> > > come here for the golf content. They come here to talk with people they
> > > know or read posts by names they recognize. It isn't about golf
> > > content, it's about personalities.
> >
> > If you would disappear RSG could get back on track. The group was
> > close to nailing down that elusive consensus on "cheap high-spin ball?"
> > and "cavity backs or blades?" before you showed up, taunted Ken Pitts,
> > and stole the show at RSG AtL.
>
> Those truly were the best of times. Do a search for my post "Why Pitts
> Fears Me" for an example of the pre-tournament "promotion" (some call
> it "taunting").

Promotion, ya right! ...wasn't it "I'm not worried about Pitts- while
he's out practising his short game tonight I'll go catch a movie.
Tomorrow I might take a nap".

I've used those lines, btw, hope you dont mind.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 20:40:47
From: Dene
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:

> But I've got news for Larry. I'm the straw that stirs the RSG drink
> and I can prove it.
> Let me explain.
>
> In January of this year I made a personal decision not to post here for
> 1 month. I didn't announce this to anyone, and it wasn't long before
> people were asking, "Where's Annika?" But a strange thing also
> happened. The number of posts on RSG dropped 33% from 7,444 in Dec-'05
> to 4,982 in Jan-'06. Contrast those numbers with the same period the
> year before when the number of posts increased 11.5% from 6,667 in
> Dec-'04 to 7,436 in Jan-'05.
> As The Oldest Member says, "And you can look it up!"
>
> Coincidence? I think not!
>
> WHO RULES?

Uh.....sorry to put in turd in your punchbowl but....uh.....there was
some controversy in Dec. '05, which led to all kind of yo-yo's coming
out of the woodwork. (Anybody seen Stemmer lately).

Anyway....you need to consider that in your statistical analysis.

Besides.....O'Reilly Rules!

-Greg

Date: 13 Nov 2006 20:31:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Herbert wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the regular posters don't
> > come here for the golf content. They come here to talk with people they
> > know or read posts by names they recognize. It isn't about golf
> > content, it's about personalities.
>
> If you would disappear RSG could get back on track. The group was
> close to nailing down that elusive consensus on "cheap high-spin ball?"
> and "cavity backs or blades?" before you showed up, taunted Ken Pitts,
> and stole the show at RSG AtL.

Those truly were the best of times. Do a search for my post "Why Pitts
Fears Me" for an example of the pre-tournament "promotion" (some call
it "taunting").
The ironic thing is that before I went down there only one person on
this NG knew my true identity. Wanna guess who? I'll give ya a hint:
he's a clubmaker from Wisconsin.

At the pre-tournament barbeque dinner my wife and I sat right next to
the long table of RSGers, all of them ignorant of my true identity. We
listened to them laughing and telling stories. Then as we left I handed
Randy Brown, sitting at the head of the table, a napkin and told him,
"You dropped something." Then I went out the door.
On the napkin was written "ANNIKA RULES !!!"

Sometimes, just for shits and giggles, I'll Google up some of the posts
surrounding that event and the next year at RSG-2K2. I was pretty
funny back then.

And what ever happened to The Demented Golfer, anyway?

Date: 13 Nov 2006 19:18:12
From: Herbert
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:

> I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the regular posters don't
> come here for the golf content. They come here to talk with people they
> know or read posts by names they recognize. It isn't about golf
> content, it's about personalities.

If you would disappear RSG could get back on track. The group was
close to nailing down that elusive consensus on "cheap high-spin ball?"
and "cavity backs or blades?" before you showed up, taunted Ken Pitts,
and stole the show at RSG AtL.

Date: 13 Nov 2006 19:04:30
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Chris wrote:
> > Annika, why should we change the channel if we're tuning in to a golf forum
> for golf content? Shouldn't the OT content folks change their channel to
> find a forum that is on topic to what they want to talk about? I'm also
> interested in boating and fishing but I don't come here to discuss it and I
> wouldn't be shocked if others here didn't want to hear about it. Why are
> you?

I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the regular posters don't
come here for the golf content. They come here to talk with people they
know or read posts by names they recognize. It isn't about golf
content, it's about personalities. That's why Dullecki is crying, he
doesnt have one.

What would happen if all the posts were truly anonymous? Let's say that
only the post itself appeared without any names. The number of posts
here would fade away to nothing.
If Larry posted his insane rants without attribution hardly anyone
would respond. They'd just think he was an idiot and they'd move on.
But knowing it is coming from Larry, many people jump on it because
beating on Larry is fun. And he loves every minute and every post of
it. He thinks he is the ultimate troll. Larry has even taken on the
moniker "King of RSG."

But I've got news for Larry. I'm the straw that stirs the RSG drink
and I can prove it.
Let me explain.

In January of this year I made a personal decision not to post here for
1 month. I didn't announce this to anyone, and it wasn't long before
people were asking, "Where's Annika?" But a strange thing also
happened. The number of posts on RSG dropped 33% from 7,444 in Dec-'05
to 4,982 in Jan-'06. Contrast those numbers with the same period the
year before when the number of posts increased 11.5% from 6,667 in
Dec-'04 to 7,436 in Jan-'05.
As The Oldest Member says, "And you can look it up!"

Coincidence? I think not!

WHO RULES?

Date: 14 Nov 2006 03:41:31
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

annika1980 wrote:

> In January of this year I made a personal decision not to post here for
> 1 month. I didn't announce this to anyone, and it wasn't long before
> people were asking, "Where's Annika?"

I didn't miss you.

> But a strange thing also
> happened. The number of posts on RSG dropped 33% from 7,444 in Dec-'05
> to 4,982 in Jan-'06. Contrast those numbers with the same period the
> year before when the number of posts increased 11.5% from 6,667 in
> Dec-'04 to 7,436 in Jan-'05.

Quantity versus quality.

I'd much rather have 5000 posts in a month about golf than 8000 about
meaningless drivel.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 2006 17:11:24
From: David Geesaman
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 13 Nov 2006 13:45:54
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

tiggerspalewife wrote:
>
> Actually, you need to update the analogy larry since it has not trickled
> down into any sort of accuracy. The farmer breathes the air full of
> particles of chicken shit, which causes him short term COPD, leading to
> emphysema, an oxygen tank around his waist and absolutely no health care
> to take care of his illness, thanks to the repugs thinking health care
> was needless and a made-up war on terror in iraq was a much better place
> to spend its billions. I said that all in one breath which this farmer
> obviously could not do. Chickens beat farmer. Farmer dies. QED.

C'mon! You know better. The farmer is working. He gets no health care
anyways. the unemployed thief who steals the chicken, breathes in the
particles, gets "progressive" health care, lives to steal another
chicken, then needs more health cares, steals another, more health
care...the only way to break the cycle is to con him into getting a
job...then he dies!

Date: 13 Nov 2006 21:59:59
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

In article <1163454354.245741.86610@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>
>
> tiggerspalewife wrote:
> >
> > Actually, you need to update the analogy larry since it has not trickled
> > down into any sort of accuracy. The farmer breathes the air full of
> > particles of chicken shit, which causes him short term COPD, leading to
> > emphysema, an oxygen tank around his waist and absolutely no health care
> > to take care of his illness, thanks to the repugs thinking health care
> > was needless and a made-up war on terror in iraq was a much better place
> > to spend its billions. I said that all in one breath which this farmer
> > obviously could not do. Chickens beat farmer. Farmer dies. QED.
>
> C'mon! You know better. The farmer is working. He gets no health care
> anyways. the unemployed thief who steals the chicken, breathes in the
> particles, gets "progressive" health care, lives to steal another
> chicken, then needs more health cares, steals another, more health
> care...the only way to break the cycle is to con him into getting a
> job...then he dies!

Maybe the chicken coop needs a higher and longer fence. :-)

Date: 14 Nov 2006 09:11:23
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

Date: 14 Nov 2006 12:00:32
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

<curtjester1@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163524283.712875.187520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you really want to change the group, you need to think about getting
> moderators. You can keep a parallel 'uncensored' group too. Just get
> a handful of regulars, and have one take a day of the week, where they
> can quickly sort through OT's, egregious name calling, and other issues
> that are agreed upon in advance.
>
> CJ

Huh, wha...? Did someone call my name?

Date: 18 Nov 2006 02:07:10
From:
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

David Geesaman wrote:

> You also have the sexual preferences of a 12 year old, which is
> sickening in its own right.

> Plonk, you worthless old fat fuck. Go voyeur the neighbor's
> flat-chested 11 year old daughter while stroking your cock.
>
> Dave

Very insightful post for such a young man. Did Annika steal something
from you?

Date: 18 Nov 2006 01:00:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?

David Geesaman wrote:
> >
> > The smell of old spice and prunes is strong with you. If you were
> all you think you are, why haven't you carved out a club in the
> photography groups? Oh, I forgot - you're only a big fish when you're
> in a small bowl.

I post frequently on the photo newsgroups as well. Don't need a "club"
to do that.

>
> It would be deliciously ironic if a spam bot to flood this group and
> lock it up good.

What would really be cool would be if you could write a coherent
sentence.

> Considering you're twice my age, and 2x my weight, you really have a
> childish attitude.

Wow, you really ARE a pencil-necked geek. You're smaller than Pflum!

> It's obvious that you live for the negative
> attention you troll up here, and frankly you prove that Democrats can be
> the most unoriginal, least insightful, and most vocal babies on the
> planet.

Wow, that's some pretty kewl logic.
Annika = troll.
Annika = Democrat.

ergo,
Democrats = crying babies

--------------------------------------------

> But you're not the only one; there are others. You cling together,
> playfight while you stroke your cock under your desks. Whee! The
> excitement it must be.

Crap, I must've left the web cam running again!

-------------------------------------------

> Boy I wish I could be in that fight club, but alas, I have a life.

You want to stroke our cocks? No thanks, kid.

Date: 18 Nov 2006 22:45:47
From: Big Bobby Clobber
Subject: Re: how did this group get ruined?