‘The
Arguments’
So ok
there were two sides to this argument as follows:
Argument 1: The
argument put by the ‘Righteous Four’ in
group three was that players should have
known that the blue tees are the ‘member’s tees’ and we shouldn’t have been
playing off them in the first place. They were discussing it while deciding
which particular sandwich was worth the $6.50 being asked, when a member of
Staff noted in not very uncertain terms, that the blue markers were competition
markers and for use by members only. Group three thought it wise to change to
the white tees, which was where they suspected they should have been playing
from in the first place. “Members pay
hundreds of dollars a year. How would you like to have a bunch of hackers
chopping up the tees? … It’s just not
cricket” Gordon reminded players during the conversation. “Yeah and it was a f#@$
of a long way to the green from those blue tees” observed Ricko as he sniffed, sneezed, and quietly spread his
contagion into the night air.
Argument 2: The
argument put by the ‘Sticklers’ and
the ‘Purists’ in the first and second
groups was that a decision had been made
at the beginning of the game in good
faith. These groups played to the rules
of the game as agreed at the beginning of the game. “And anyone who didn’t play by them has ethics” contributed Tom at
one stage. Most claimed they were unaware that there was any question about
playing off the blue markers. “Why didn’t
anyone from the club tell us that?” exclaimed Harry.
The Resolution:
Basically, a few more drinks, some good food and great company made for a great
night. Essentially the problem was consumed, digested, and by the next day it had
gone away. Congratulations to the winners as presented. They are the legitimate
winners for 2005.