Thompson in the Bull Pen; Shaughnessy Heads to Green Acres

I flew into Vancouver early — damned early — yesterday, and found myself on the range at Shaughnessy G & CC by 10 am. The day was terrific. I was at the club to play with Norm Keevil, the chairman of mining giant Teck Cominco as part of my Going for the Green book that will appear next year.

I’m a big fan of Shaughnessy — it is a fascinating AV Macan design that utilizes a relatively flattish piece of property with some subtle rolls and huge trees, as well as some great vistas of the nearby water. It played extremely tough during the Canadian Open in 2005, and it would be nice to see the event return again soon.

It will have to — if it wants to be played at Shaughnessy as we know it. The course is built on land leased from a local native band, and the lease ends within two decades. That’s left the club looking for a new location — as it feels the lease will not be renewed given the value of the land the course sits on.

According to what I heard at the club yesterday, the club has acquired Green Acres Golf Club and some additional land and intends on reworking the course and turning it into its new home. Doug Carrick had previously been retained to build the new course for the club — though I’m not sure if that’s still the plan.


After my round, I met with Dick Zokol.

“Where do you want to go to eat?”

Dick laughingly suggested the Bull Pen, the much-discussed men’s lounge at Marine Drive Golf Club, the club that has been home to so many great golfers — from Zokol to Doug Roxburgh. The course is super tight — built on just over 90 acres — so apparently you either hit the ball straight or don’t play there.

For those who don’t know about the saga of the Bull Pen — go here. Essentially a group of female members at Marine Drive have pursued a lengthy lawsuit against the club, asking for access to the men’s lounge. So far they’ve repeatedly lost.

I think Dick was surprised when I said that yes, indeed, I’d love to go to the Bull Pen.

In my mind the place must somehow be quite lurid, somewhat akin to a strip club, where male members sat around naked and played cards, just as they do in some American private men’s only clubs.

When we walked in — the sign “Bull Pen” is clearly indicated on the door — I was a bit disappointed. The Bull Pen is simply a big lounge with lots of wood on the walls and a nice bar, as well as a TV playing the Vancouver Canucks game. No posters of Pamela Anderson could be seen anywhere. Color me unimpressed.

We sat down for a beer and soon the men’s night participants started filing in, including club president Brian Butters (an apparently G4G reader), as well as a member of the club who has regularly posted on this site. I spoke with Butters briefly about the situation, and he seems pretty certain the women’s final appeal — to Canada’s Supreme Court — will be turned down, as all previous court cases have been. He’s probably right — and after having seen the Bull Pen, I’m surprised at all the hysteria around something that appears pretty mundane.

Related Articles

About author View all posts Author website

Robert Thompson

A bestselling author and award-winning columnist, Robert Thompson has been writing about business and sports, and particularly golf, for almost two decades. His reporting and commentary on golf has appeared in Golf Magazine, the Globe and Mail, T&L Golf and many other media outlets. Currently Robert is a columnist with Global Golf Post, golf analyst for Global News and Shaw Communications, and Senior Writer to ScoreGolf. The Going for the Green blog was launched in 2004.

36 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Hysteria….

    1. An uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
    2. Psychoanalysis. a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.

    How is a civil liberties challenge in the supreme court of our country equate to hysteria?

  • Of course Butters thinks the woman’s final appeal will turned down. It is in his best interest to publically express that opinion. To do otherwise would be disservice to his core membership stakeholders (those being men).

    But Robert, if the Bullpen is so mundane, why are the male members fighting so hard to protect their male only lounge. People don’t fight that hard to protect something that is not valuable to them. There’s more to this story. I’m surprised you did not probe deeper into this issue while you were there.

    BTW, let’s suppose I was a woman member and wanted to talk with the President of the Club one evening when I knew he was on the club premises….Oh, that’s right, he is in the Bullpen having a beer with his buddies watching the Canucks game, and being a woman, I cannot gain access to him. Maybe I can have him paged or have to make a special appointment to talk with him. That seems like an equitable arrangement to me. Cannot imagine why the woman members are fighting so hard for equal access…I think it is called respect…The male members really need to enter the 1980s.

  • You want a golf journalist to dig deeper? Find out all points of view. Present a reasonable, balanced article? From a golf journalist? Now that is funny.

    Robert was actually imagining a Bull Pen with Pamela Anderson posters. When he didn’t find any, then what was all the hysteria about? The conclusion was then quite simple. There is no Pamela Anderson posters here. What are does women complaining about. Why are they being hysterical?

    A journalist that digs deeper? From a golf journalist? From a male golf journalist, chugging beer in the Bull Pen? Now that is really really funny.

  • By the way Robert, the really worst discrimination that happens is that which is hidden. The resume that is dismissed out of hand because of some form of discrimination. The membership that is dismissed because religion doesn’t quite match up. The discimination that is overt, with Pamela Anderson posters hanging around, as you say, is rather harmless, in my humble opinon. I hope you enjoyed your beer.

  • Weekend: The women have their own lounge and there’s an additional shared lounge. The Bullpen isn’t quite what you’d think — more of a few tables and a bar with a nice view. I was surprised this was what has caused all the fuss.

    Frankly, while I think the optics are questionable, I do believe private clubs should be governed by their members. I equally believe that men’s only clubs like the National have a place in golf, even if I wouldn’t be comfortable joining one. Similarly I think Toronto Ladies has a right to exist without male members.

    As per Funny’s remarks:

    I did enjoy the beer, but we left the Bull Pen after it because the place was getting too full — men’s night after all.

    Let’s be clear — I was a guest of an associate who is a member of the club. I wasn’t going to embarrass him in any way. So I chatted with a couple of the players and the president, asked where things stood with the court case and went on my way.

    To be honest, you’d have to see the layout of the Bull Pen to understand why I was surprised that it had caused all this consternation. It is actually open to the dining room, and has direct access to some shared areas of the club. I envisioned something more removed from the rest of the club — which this wasn’t. It is attached to a nice patio overlooking the closing hole at Marine Drive. Perhaps the piece of real estate is preferable to the women’s lounge, but it was far from opulent. I’d call it comfortable.

    And as for Pam Anderson, I was being facetious.

    Oh, and if you don’t like what has gone on at Marine Drive — vote with your dollars. Stay away from the club. If enough people feel the situation is a problem, it will change because the club will be forced to change. Regardless this case is a waste of the court’s time at this point and I’d be surprised if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.

  • RT:

    As you say…”Frankly, while I think the optics are questionable, I do believe private clubs should be governed by their members. I equally believe that men’s only clubs like the National have a place in golf, even if I wouldn’t be comfortable joining one. Similarly I think Toronto Ladies has a right to exist without male members.”

    I think you have to look at it from the female point of view. If these clubs or the Bullpen lounge has a position of enabling members with unique knowledge, power, or influence to connect and there is a barrier for admittance being gender (which cannot be changed except under extraordinary circumstances), then there is discrimination. As a society, we should be striving to remove any barriers of discrimination where ever it exists.

    I agree that we should not go over the top in being politically correct but at the same time, when a club like Marine Drive fights so hard to protect a “mundane lounge” with a nice view, then there is something to it…and I am not referring to the optics of the lounge. It sure feels like an old boys mentality of the members and I bet some of those old boys are powerful in the Vancouver community. Restricting access based on gender is wrong. Even though Marine Drive is a private club, it should be changed.

    BTW, Ladies Golf Club does have male members…but with restricted privileges (and reduced fees I believe)…and as of several years ago, a poorer quality changing room.

  • Weekend: The problem I have with your debate is that the issue was voted on by the membership. I wonder why people who don’t like the idea would want to be members there — why not simply find a club that is more representative of their viewpoint?

  • RT:

    There are any number of reasons why woman members would want to be at a particular club…maybe they were led to believe it was different in the application process, maybe they like the course, maybe its location is ideal, maybe they like a small circle of members? Who knows. But the point is, they are in the club and the club should meet basic discriminatory testing requirements even if it is a private club.

    I understand your point…the club is run by members, they vote, and those decisions should stand. If, as a member, you do not like it, leave and find somewhere else. Come to think of it, this is what the Jewish golfers did earlier in the last century and setup clubs like Oakdale in Toronto, Glendale in Winnipeg etc when they were not allowed access to many existing golf clubs. Some may say, that is fine…they found a club that is “more representative of their viewpoint”. Do you think that was OK?

    The Bullpen issue is slightly different (woman are already members), smaller scale (question of degree of access) but the underlying current is still the same…Discriminatory policies that are based on gender…and these should stop, even at a private club.

  • Weak End… Glad to see your fact finding mission continues.

    You said “I agree that we should not go over the top in being politically correct”

    Ah… now I see where this is going. Your argument is very typical of females seeking ‘equality’. It is OK for certain traditions to remain in place (doors held open for women, reduced fees, etc.), but you are not in favour of traditions where it may not be a perfect scenario for you. Very typical of female ‘equality’ fighters today. Something about cake and eating it too?

    RT, hope you enjoyed the beer and your social time in the bullpen.

  • Tigre:

    You are so hopelessly lost and out of touch on this issue. I enjoy reading your entries because they are so ludicrous. Keep them coming, I need a laugh now and then.

    Oh and by the way, opening a door for a woman is common courtesy. It does not represent anything more…and how that compares to the discussion at hand represents a logic beyond any level of reasonableness. But then again, please explain. As I say, I need a good laugh now and then.

  • Weak,

    Hopefully lost you say? I would suggest that the two top courts of British Columbia say you and your group are hopelessly lost on this issue. Lets hope this issue will be put to bed in the coming weeks when the Supreme Court of Canada decides not to hear this frivolous case. Hopefully then you will do the members of Marine Drive a favour and go away too.

  • Tigre:

    Actually I wrote you are “hopelessly” lost not “hopefully” lost…I need not hope you are lost, I know you are lost.

    However, as you say “Lets hope this issue will be put to bed…” “Hope” is the accurate word in that sentence. I can see you have lots of confidence on this issue if you are “hoping”. Geez, with all that bravado you expressed in previous posts, I would have thought “hope” would be the last word you would use…

    If the Supreme Court rules in the Club’s favour, we may go away but the discrimination continues…Long live the 1950s…then again, we might not go away regardless of the outcome…

    Weak…funny, I like that shortened version of your spelling of Weekend. That wit of yours…sharp as the underbelly of a bathtub.

  • Weak,

    Glad to see you have gone to grammar shots and comedy in your posts. It is about all you have left to go on since you and your group have been trounced by the judicial system every single time.

    Keep living in your la-la land… the rest of us will go with rational court rulings and matters of fact.

  • Tigre:

    I have a “group”? Wow, do tell. Where did I mention I was affiliated with a group?

    Have you ever responded to the assertion that there is discrimination at Marine Drive? Well, here’s a question.

    Discrimination is defined as:
    “treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit”

    So, riddle me this. How does the fact that woman who are not being given access to a lounge based solely on being a woman not meet the definition of discrimination?

  • Ah Weak… well, I will ‘amuse’ you with FACTS once again.

    #1. You ask if you have a ‘group’? Yes you do and you even refer to your group in your posting above. “If the Supreme Court rules in the Club’s favour, WE may go away but the discrimination continues…Long live the 1950s…then again, WE might not go away regardless of the outcome…” That, my Weakness, refers to your group.

    #2. You ask if I have ever addressed the assertion of discrimination at Marine Drive. Well, first off this has nothing to do with the court case the golf club is involved with (the case is only about the golf club being able to govern itself by the membership’s wishes) but I will take your pitiful bait.

    I have never said the club does not discriminate. In fact if you look at posts of mine from months ago you will see that I state the club discriminates and discriminates against males more than they do women. Males are not given the same rights to join with reduced entrance fees and dues as women are able to (a woman can join with reduced fees and 1st tee access or they can join as a full play member with the same 1st tee access rights as a man – a man only has the one choice). Right now there is a long waiting list for men to join the club (all paying full dues) and no wait for women (very similar to other private clubs in the area). If there was no discrimination at all would we not open up all categories of membership to people of both sexes? That would seem to be the most ‘equal’ thing to do, would it not? Ah, but the membership as a whole has decided that is what they want to do and you were more than happy to join the club and take advantage of this discriminatory practice. If you want to talk about discrimination you should certainly include ALL types of discrimination would you not? We also provide women with a full vote (something no other club in Vancouver does) so would it not be discriminatory against men to have the same vote as someone who only paid half of what they did?

    So to answer your question simply, yes there are discriminatory practices at Marine Drive. There has been for years and will continue to be as long as that is what the membership decides. Like I said, you were more than happy to take advantage of these practices by joining as a female.

    It gets back to my earlier post about equality. Women love to claim discrimination when something might not be in their favour, however these women like to completely forget about other areas of discrimination that they take 100% advantage of. Ah, the ‘equality’ movement… you have to love it.

  • We agree that there are discriminatory practices at Marine Drive.

    It seems unfair that Marine Drive would want to continue these practices but I would suggest there are reasons…

    No restricted men’s memberships as that might cut into the revenue base of the club. No Board wants to be known for reducing revenues…

    No woman’s access to the Bullpen. The primarily male only membership wants to continue gender based discrimination for their own good.

    These discriminatory policies should be discontinued. The reason discrimination should be discontinued is that discrimination by definition means treating a minority or less powerful group unfairly. Hiding behind the “everyone has a vote” is ludicrous because the minority cannot alter unfair practices by definition! It requires part of the majority to side with them. If the majority is gaining an unfair advantage that they want to mainatin, then the unfairness will never be addressed. That is why outside influences need to interfere.

    It is sad that a well known and heretofore respected golf club in Canada has had its reputation tarnished by an old boys mentality / values that is inconsistent with today’s cultural norms. You cannot teach old dogs new tricks…and this is apparently true for Marine Drive Golf Club.

  • Let me remind you once again. Over 50% of the FEMALE members at Marine Drive voted that they were in favour of separate lounges at the golf club. It would seem that the majority of the ‘minority’ (as you refer to the females) are quite happy with the arrangement. Your argument holds no merit and the two highest courts in this Province have agreed.

  • Tigre:

    That does not change the facts. The Bullpen policy is a discriminatory one and needs to change. Marine Drive has unhappy members that are being ignored or bullied by the rest of the membership…In today’s society with a trend toward inclusion rather than exclusion, Marine Drive is the exception. Its reputation is being tarnished…needlessly…

  • I accidentally came across this exerpt from a posting (dated, Jan 2007) in Bob Week’s blog that documented part of the complaint form submitted to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. If any of these allegations are true, it is a very very sad commentary on some of the male membership of Marine Drive.

    …after the Marine Drive board turned the Bull Pen into a mixed lounge (it lasted three months) two women went in and were were met by two male members who referred to them as “fucking women” and told them to “get the fuck out” of the Bullpen Lounge;

    A group of women went out onto the outside deck of the lounge and a male member then wedged a knife into the door to prevent them from re-entering;

    When two women walked through the lounge, a male member asked loudly, “Did anyone else smell that?”;

    A woman member, who is a lesbian, and proponent of making the Bull Pen a mixed lounge, was leaving the club on her birthday. She found a package by her car. The package contained an English Cucumber, a banana and a carrot together with a note that read, “A Birthday gift from your new friends in the Bullpen.”

    A director allegedly said he would “not let a group of fucking c**ts run the club or tell him what to do.”

    I think I have a better understanding as to why the Club would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the lawsuit requiring them to make the Bull Pen a mixed lounge…

  • Once again, allegations that haven’t been proven. I don’t condone these remarks, but they don’t really have anything to do with the issue at hand, which is the decision to allow gender-based lounges. I appreciate your interest and enthusiasm for the topic, but it is starting to feel like a beating a dead horse.

    I get it — you don’t agree with the decision. That’s your right. So far the courts have agreed with the club’s right to make its own decision. No one is forcing anyone to join Marine Drive — and since you clearly don’t like the club’s position, Weekend, I assume you won’t be giving them your money.

    Frankly, if there are enough people like you, then the club’s position will have to change. I don’t think that will happen….

  • I’m prepared to bet real money that Weekend Enthusiast is a female member of Marine Drive, and, in fact, one of the ringleader complainants in the legal action.
    We’ll know for sure when she starts one of her posts with “I have a dream . . . “

  • RT:

    Thanks for your response. Sometimes it takes “beating a dead horse” to change opinions so I will continue to voice a position that may be in contrast to many who read this blog but who may be willing to re-consider their own viewpoints.

    Pablo, as for whether I am a member of Marine Drive, a female, or even live in BC, that really is irrelevant. As is obvious from previous posts, I find the discriminatory policies of Marine Drive offensive and they should be stopped…even though it is a private club.

    “The oldest and easiest method of negotiation is to attack the author.”…

  • From Weak End:

    Pablo (TB note: it’s PABO), as for whether I am a member of Marine Drive, a female, or even live in BC, that really is irrelevant.

    No Weak, what is irrelevant is the other ramblings you have been putting on this board for months. Even the author of this blog (who you think would want the traffic and discussion) seems to be getting tired of your posts.

    It seems you are very good at speaking to irrelevant points of this case, while ignoring facts and court rulings.

    RT says he assumes you won’t be giving Marine Drive any money. I would hope he is correct seeing that Marine Drive has had this tradition for over 80 years and, if you are a member, you joined this club knowing full well of the rules and traditions associated with the club.

    If you are a member of the club please respect the wishes of the majority of members (female members included) and also respect the rulings of the two highest courts in the Province. Then please leave. If you are not a member of the club please continue your weekend hacking someplace else.

  • Tigre:

    Where do you make this stuff up? Am I ignoring the rulings of the two courts in BC? No, but I disagree with them. That should be obvious from my opinions expressed on this forum.

    As for traditions at Marine Drive…just because they are traditions does not make them right. They need to meet the test of discriminatory practices. This case may well indeed die with the Supreme Court. Then again it may not.

    What is important is that these practices should cease but if the Supreme Court denies hearing the appeal, then it will likely only come about if the membership at Marine Drive changes their views. Based on the allegations of what may have happened in the Bull Pen back in 2004 when woman were briefly allowed entrance, I doubt any change will come from within.

    It is a shame really. Such a beautiful club with a long history and I suspect many distinguished members…all being tarnished with this court case and associated behaviour.

    As for who I am or where I play…maybe I am a member of Marine Drive, a male, and one who regularly enjoys the Bull Pen. It just that expressing these views inside the Club would cause me untold angst and not worth the effort. Expressing them here gives a voice for a different perspective. Then again, maybe I am some unknown golfer in a different part of the country. It really does not matter. Again, focus on the discussion, not the author.

  • Weak,

    I have focused on the discussion at hand in all my posts. I list facts in my posts, while you continue to change the topic to matters that are not in front of the court or are not what this case is about.

    Bottom line is that the members of the club (male and female) have chosen to have separate lounges for men and women and two courts have declared they are within their rights to do so.

    The question that really should be asked is why would these women join a club where these traditions were already in place, and then spend a large amount of money (well, at least one stupid member -snif- is spending a large amount of money) to fund such a ridiculous case. They are certainly not brain surgeons and I hope they get what they deserve from the Supreme Court of Canada.

    Again, these people should stop wasting the time and money of good members of Marine Drive and simply leave. I would think these members who have sued the golf club are already embarrassed at what they have done to the club. The club will be stronger than ever once this lunacy comes to an end.

  • I hope you are right about the Club being stronger when the lunacy comes to an end. If the adage of “what does not kill you makes you stronger” is true, then I would agree with you.

    However, when the club goes through such a public mess over an obviously discriminatory practice, the end result is a tarnished image…emergency board meetings to overthrow the existing directors, public lawsuits, allegations of highly inappropriate behaviour by male members, potential Supreme Court involvement…I have to believe that the club will eventually modify its guidelines as there are only so many men left who adhere or will put up with this kind of behaviour…unless the Supreme Court of Canada decides to hear the case. Then, the club may have no choice.

  • I have to disagree with you once again Weak. The club is already stronger as we have a longer waiting list to get into the club than when this began (apparently many members of the public disagree with your stance that this is a major issue). I think the club will only get stronger once this is over, as members and potential members will see that Marine Drive is a club that will stand up for the wishes of their membership as a whole, not just crumbling to a small group of militant members with their own personal agenda.

    You see the golf club IS the members. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone was to come into your house or place of business and tell you how to run the show when you felt you were entitled to do what you had been for a long time you would want to fight also. That is exactly what has happened here and thankfully each court along the way has decided with the club and the majority of members.

    Since we are in somewhat of a dialog here, do you know what the intention of your group is if the Supreme Court of Canada were to deny your leave? Surely these women would not want to stay members and pay dues to such a barbaric club run by people with values from the 1950’s.

  • I know you think I am part of a woman’s group but I cannot speak for the group you are referring. Bottom line, I do not have a clue as to their intentions or wishes.

    As I have said in other posts, this issue is really about communication and understanding. There are any number of reasons why the woman would want to be part of the club.

    I would think that the Directors should seek to understand their viewpoint and address it. Apparently, the Directors have decided to take the opposite approach…which is essentially…this is the way it has always been and will continue to be and we will fight tooth and nail to maintain that stance.

    As you say, if the club is your members, then the club should service all your members. When the practices of the club fall into a grey area (as clearly the Bull Pen policy does), and some members are not satisfied and are sufficiently unhappy, then they have every right to seek legal action, which they have done. But seeking answers through the legal system should be the last resort and if the Membership / Directors had addressed their concerns to their satisfaction unfront, then this mess could have been avoided.

    I find it surprising (and questionable financially) that the club would invest several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to fight to maintain a discriminatory policy. I have to believe that reasonable people would have been able to work this out before the legal system was involved. The fact that it was not speaks volumes about the Marine Drive membership.

  • Weak,

    Another great post. Wow, you are really in tune with reality.

    So now this issue is about communication and understanding huh? How many times has your group changed what this case is about? First off the case was about the Bullpen being in a spot that was too nice for the rest of the clubhouse, then is was about it being a human rights issue, then when you found out it had no merit because the club is private you try and fight the idea that the club is private. Hmm, I know I would be grasping for straws too if I had been beat up by facts and reality at every turn, but come on, give it a rest and leave all these good members of the club alone. They are simply doing what the two highest courts in this Province have told them it is in their legal rights to do.

    I know you think the club will go into some sort of financial tailspin if this practice was to continue, but the facts are the club is healthier than ever and has more people wanting to join the club now then they had before you and your tiny percentage of members started this stuff.

    How is the Bullpen issue a grey one? I do not have to remind you that a VAST majority of members want this. Seems pretty black and white to me. You say the club should service all their members huh? Well, the club tries to service all members, but unfortunately this will never happen when you get 1,000 people together. That is why you have boards and policies in place for people to change things. That is what your group did not do; instead you tried to hide behind some ‘legal’ issues and made threats to the club thinking they didn’t have the guts to call. Thank goodness the club had strong people in place to defend the rights and wishes of the membership as a whole.

  • Tigre:

    There are a couple of concepts being discussed at the same time. Obviously, I need to take you through them.

    You seem to think I am part of the woman’s group fighting Marine Drive and attach their arguments to me. I have said…discuss the issues, not the author. Yet, I must say it again…

    This issue is about a private club’s ability to do as they seem, even with discriminatory practices. Even a private club has to uphold certain policies (e.g. no criminal activity). The question is whether this discriminatory policy falls under the perview of society’s norms and must be discontinued. Two courts in BC have said they can…the question is whether they were wrong. The Supreme Court will decide from a legal view whether they are willing to hear the case.

    But this case is really about communication and understanding. The specific issue at hand is the Bull Pen policy. The broader question is how the Club understands and communicates with its membership. Clearly, they were doing a poor job as evidenced by both sides firm commitment toward funding extensive legal bills to win. When this occurs, both sides have not been willing to listen and discuss in a meaningful way. If they had, it would not have reached a court setting. The Club must take responsibility for this as they have governance over this issue.

    Your comment that this issue seems pretty “black and white to me” is evidence that you don’t get it. To think the Bull Pen policy is black and white reflects a simplistic and naive view of the world. But then again, you think I am part of the woman’s group based on no evidence. Maybe you need to associate me with the group so you can box my posts into your view of the world.

    And yes, a club can service all its members with listening and understanding rather than disregarding common and reasonable norms of today’s society. But then again if the allegations of male behaviour toward female members, during the brief period when the Bull Pen was open to woman, is any indication of the male sentiment at Marine Drive, listening and understanding is not part of their makeup.

    BTW, I have never heard you comment on the allegations. Your silence on that issue is deafening…

  • Alright gents — enough. Take it outside.

    I appreciate the discussion, but I think this issue is not going to be resolved by the two of you going back and forth.

  • Weak… it’s good that you are willing to let go. Now all you need to do is take your name off the frivolous complaint and get back to focusing on hitting the ball less than 140 times during your wonderful 4 hours each Saturday and Sunday.

  • Sorry RT, pot shots like the one above deserve a response…but I will resist…in the interests of ending this saga. Good luck Tigre. For your own sake, I hope you re-evaluate your attitude.

Leave a Reply