[TEPaul]

If you want to deal with the work of Maxwell on that course or even Fazio, and my opinion about any of it, I'd be glad to but only one at a time.

Again, on that hump on #18 I think there was nothing wrong with removing it given what Crump thought of it but as far as putting some kind of roll to the right corner of the green, I have no real problem with that in theory. But since Crump died before that idea was completely developed and designed by him how do you propose the club do that? I know how I'd propose they do it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'll describe for you why I feel that there are prudent reasons to restore the hump in # 18 green.

First, we know that Crump conceived, designed and built that green with a hump in it.   Agreed ?

Second, we know that during his life he never altered that feature, despite having the opportunity to do so.  Agreed ?

Third, we only know that third parties allege his intentions to remove the hump and replace it with a roll in casual coversation with him.  Agreed ?

Fourth, Crump never evidenced, by putting pen to paper, his desire to remove the hump and install a roll.  Agreed ?

Fifth, the current green is ...... ordinary, without unique, redeeming qualities.  Agreed ?

Viewing those five issues, individually, and more importantly, collectively, I don't think it's imprudent to suggest a restoration of that green to Crump's original design, or at the very least, to the roll he allegedly intended.  Agreed ?

I'm not so sure that John Arthur Brown managed Pine Valley by consensus.

I'm also not aware of his architectural acuity.

And, I see an apparent conflict, a conundrum, or enigma in your understanding and presentation of PV as being omniscient, in all matters, including architecture, and the knowledge of what Crump designed and what his intentions were, when they didn't even know that he commited suicide.

You're not going to claim that JAB was an idiot-savant, are you ?  

On a serious note, I think there's a body of evidence and reason that would lead one to conclude that either the hump be restored or that the roll be created as Crump allegedly intended.

[Mike Cirba]

Happier times, but you can see things starting to turn.

[DMoriarty]

Happier times, but you can see things starting to turn.

Happier times?  You've got to be kidding me!   The essay was and is excellent, but what went on leading up to it and even following it was beyond an embarrassment.

TEPaul and his cronies ruthlessly stalked Tom MacWood for months or longer as he researched this piece.  They insulted him, defamed him, told lies about him and told lies to him, and they lashed out at anyone and everyone who demonstrated the least bit of support for him.   And the worse part was the reaction of the rest of the website.  With very few exceptions there was total silence. This group of "gentleman" just turned away, apparently afraid to face up to the self-proclaimed leader of the  "Philly Posse," or perhaps too worried about access to say a word.

To my mind the treatment of Tom MacWood relating to what became this essay may be the low point in the history of the website, and that is coming from someone who has witnessed plenty of baseless and defamatory witch hunts from the sharp end of the pitchfork.  But then having instigated a number of these witch hunts yourself, you know must already know this, Mike.

[Peter Pallotta]

And sadly, David, history repeats itself -- with a new batch of "gentlemen" remaining equally silent as you mock and condescend away protected by your cloak of victimhood and shield of self-righteousness.  I don't see that Mike has said/directed anything at you that merits that continual barrage of personal insults; you really should apologize, IMO.    

Yes, you were treated very shabbily and very unfairly.  (The fact that your essay -- specifically, the thesis you refuse to admit was your thesis -- went beyond what you could meaningfully support in no way justified such a harsh reaction or personal attacks.)  But in turn, you now seem to have institutionalized one of your favourite sayings, i.e. that the past is prologue, and seem determined that ensure that every post/thread is as mocking and insulting as ones you had to endure.

PS - I know that you began your post talking about Tom Macwood. He has had to endure a lot too - but I think we all recognize that Tom can take care of himself, and that he often gives as good as he gets, if usually in a more subtle way. (I apologized to Tom in an IM once, for what I knew was a post that had unfairly questioned his motives.)   

Peter  

[Mike Cirba]

Peter,

Virtually every post I have made since David returned here in Spril 2010 has been met with a personal insult from David.

I thank you for seeing and mentioning what has been going on here with this very weird, mean-spirited type of stalking, but I do have to tell you that it is so over the top, nonsensical, and baseless that I actually laugh out loud reading most of his posts and I feel very comfortable that almost everyone else here does as well.

[Mike Cirba]

And Peter,

For what it's worth, I agree that some of the criticism of David,s paper went over the line in terms of personalizing things, but that bonfire had already been set by a series of emails going about indicating that David and TMac were going to make fools of Wayne and Tom Paul in their own backyard.

Irrespective of the backlash, it isn't like David was some defenseless lamb led to slaughter.

In case of point, he had been a semi-prominent LA courtroom lawyer who could certainly stand up for himself in a verbal tussle, so this constant claim of victimimhood and not being properly understood rings so untrue and odd.

[DMoriarty]

That's you, Peter, always there to stand up for the oppressed.  Just like you used to stand up for your oppressed buddy TEPaul when either MacWood or I ever dared hit back. 

And classy move on your part, taking tired and unsupportable shots at me and my essay while at the same time reluctantly acknowledging I was treated unfairly.  If only I could learn to be more passive-aggressive like you, perhaps I could have my cake and eat it too.

But as it is, the direct approach is more my style.  I don't suffer fools gladly, and when hit I tend to hit back hard.  Unlike with Mike and friends my words are honest and accurate, but nonetheless I should learn to hold my tongue.  No one likes to be called incompetent, but it is especially hard on those who actually are.   

As you can tell, I am not about to make nice with Cirba.   I will work on treating him a bit more dispassionately, though.  He isn't really worth wasting the words.

[DMoriarty]

So Peter, since you've once again appointed yourself ombudsman at least to my behavior, perhaps you can walk me through this, because as if on cue Cirba has just posted either an outright lie or some seriously misleading shit about me.

He wrote:

And Peter,

For what it's worth, I agree that some of the criticism of David,s paper went over the line in terms of personalizing things, but that bonfire had already been set by a series of emails going about indicating that David and TMac were going to make fools of Wayne and Tom Paul in their own backyard.

A "series of emails going about [how] me and Tom MacWood were going to make fools of Wayne and TEPaul in their own back yard?"  A "bonfire" had been set?  Who set the bonfire?  Not me!  

I never sent any such emails, nor was that ever my intention. But that is certainly the implication of his post above, is it not?  Or is he referring to the shitty third hand false gossip that sent him on his witch hunt where he refused to ever substantiate his lies, but kept right on spreading them nonetheless?  Is he seriously suggesting that I deserved what I got because he swallowed some lame, self-serving, and false gossip and took it upon himself to spread the lies to everyone on and off the website?  

From my perspective, he is either lying or he is attempting mislead people into believing that his abhorrent behavior was justified.  Either way, from my perspective this is pure sleaze and ought to be called out as such.  

So what should I do?  
- Do I ignore it and just hope that no one out there is clueless enough to believe anything he says?  
- Or do I come up with some backhanded, passive-aggressive way of dealing with it, like you would?  
- Or do I call it out for what he is?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Happier times, but you can see things starting to turn.

Me thinks Brutus doth protest too much.

Mike, there was no call for you to resurrect this thread with the comment you made.
You did it deliberately, for one reason and one reason only, to stir the pot.

And, David is correct, he and Tom MacWood were both attacked by TEPaul and Lord Voldemort BEFORE he even published his piece.

As to my feelings about the 18th green at PV, I think reply # 101 sums it up well.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

When a friend called me asking me to avoid posting on the upcoming Merion IMO thread as you and Tom were about to disclose information that would make (and was designed to) Tom and Wayne look like fools in their own backyard, it was not a difficult rumor to believe given the past animosity between the four of you on the PV as well as your original Merion Alps threads.

When all is said and done, only you and Tom know what your motivations were, or what was shared with those you sent your draft paper to, or how they interpreted what you presented to them.

I've publicly apologized in the past, only to watch you continue to blast Wayne (and to a lesser extent, Tom) long after both of them have left this site.

I would have done things differently given what I know now...I would have reached out to you and Tom first with my concerns, but we all have to live and learn.

[DMoriarty]

Peter,  

Where'd you go?  Surely you didn't just pop in to sermonize, and then abandon your flock to this crap.  I need a little help here.

Perhaps you could explain to Mike the continuing sleazy nature of his posts above.  First, he is blatantly misrepresenting how things went down, and the nature and extent of his own culpability in the witch hunt.  At the time, Mike swore this source of his was beyond reproach and a good friend of mine, and that this information came from ME originally.  These are all lies, and Mike knows this.  He later even admitted that the info was third-hand or worse, and he had no reasonable basis for passing it along as if it were true.   Shouldn't he be set straight?

And how about his trying to keep the whole thing going even now?  Only Tom and I know our true intentions? What a load of crap. I explained my intentions repeatedly, both before and after I came back.  I even set it all out for Tom and Wayne before I came back, explained why I was coming back and what I hoped to accomplish.  Mike knows this, but he continues to malign me even all these years later!

How about if I spent the next six months telling everyone that one of Mike's closest friends - an unimpeachable source - told me that he saw Mike Cirba molesting small animals and worse.   And I refused to reveal my source but nonetheless kept spreading the rumor in spite of Mike's denials. Then to justify my behavior, I claimed that only Mike really knows if he molests small animals, and worse. Would that be above-board on my part?  Or would I be a complete asshole for spreading unconfirmed lies, and a bigger asshole for weaseling out of it and trying to impugn him even after I know it is false?

And Cirba again intentionally misleads everyone by again implying that he got the information directly from someone close to me, from one of those to whom I sent my draft.  Another lie. He doesn't know to whom I sent my draft.   I provided the essay to four people beforehand for review; Patrick, MacWood, Ran, and one other person who is NOT who Cirba thinks it is.  I know who Mike's scumbag source was, and the other person who saw the essay would have had nothing to do with him.

Why is Mike still trying to keep this nasty crap alive?  He screwed up and knows he screwed up, so why does he try to keep it going even now?  

Peter, what do I do when someone like this just cannot tell the truth?  I don't know whether Mike is too stupid to even realize he is making matters worse, or whether this is just a continuation of the intentional his lame attempts at character assassination that started years ago.   Do you know?   If so could you fill me in?   Either way let me know what my move is here.

And this is just one of the witch hunts!  There were many more, but they will have to wait.
____________________________________________

Patrick,  

You are right about Mike's resurrecting this thread.   He must have been living on another planet if he thinks these were "happier times." And Mike was one of the ones leading the charge even before my essay came out.  Wayne and Tom were controlled in comparison.  But so much else with these guys they are oblivious to their own wrongdoing.

By the way, his past post implicates you in his his first witch hunt after my essay.   Back then he claimed it was a friend of mine who provided him with the information and now he implies it was someone who saw my essay.   Well the only ones who saw it were you, Ran, Tom MacWood, and one other person.   Of course it wasn't any of you, but that won't stop Mike from lying and pretending it was.  

[paul cowley]

I was really enjoying the 2005 thread and posts...missing 5 really fine minds...until the latest group of 2011 posts...and wished them away again.

What a loss for all.

[Scott Warren]

Mike C,

As an impartial observer, I must ask -- why bump this thread?

[David Harshbarger]

Thanks for bringing up the article, though.  Really fine especially leading up to the Crump cup, and following watching the 1962 Shell match the other day.

As for the commentary, I see it as a DG version of a Godzilla movie.  These giant, indestructible monsters rage across the landscape locked in pitched battle, laying waste to everything around, based on some pre-historic animosity that is unknowable to the rest of us.  Occasionally, they show up in your thread and there goes the town, the dam, the power plant, the harbor, etc.  Then they move on.

As a fan of the genre, I try to enjoy it for what it is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()