Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

[JESII]

First of all, let's be honest...is there a soul on the planet that could delve into this conversation as "an objective observer"? If you can find one person that could approach this subject in complete objectivity while also being interested in wading into the arguments of each side I would disqualify them on the basis of total and complete insanity. I would then take them out to TEP's farm and lock them in his padded room (fortunately, he does have a computer in there...). It's impossible!

Now back to the fight...


To me, "of the greatest help and value" means he routed the course and laid out the holes in rough form, and left the detail work to the committee or possibly he was able to provide general advice on laying out and building A golf course and we were appreciative of that or maybe it means something in between. Any arguments there?



I didn't think so.


Now, since it's likely somewhere in between, what exactly do you think it means Mr. Moriarty? After all, that is the basis for all of this, is it not?



p.s.

David,

The way I read the quoted Alan Wilson writing about CBM helping with the lay out of the golf course is not quite as specific as you did with regards to the routing of Merion East. I don't have the words in front of me so perhaps someone can post them. I read those remarks in the specific situation the Merion Committee found themselves...in other words, when Wilson talks of "laying out the golf course" and you take the word "the" to mean they were specifically talking about the lay out of Merion East and state that this is evidence that CBM was at least directly involved in the routing I disagree. I disagree based on my reading of Wilson's words. I look at it this way...when the committee was in this planning process, and these meetings with CBM were taking place, they only had one course in mind. In their minds this was all specific to Merion East. I have not seen any writings that make CBM's input on routings and hole concepts specific to Merion East. If I overlooked them, please tell me where I might find them.

Admittedly, not as an objective observer, but honestly submitted.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

You forget, I'm a huge fan/student of CBM and his work.
If anything, I would lean toward his involvement.

But, to be intellectually honest, I can't.

There is absolutely NOTHING that details any specific advise, suggestions or work that CBM did at or for Merion.

And absent the production of bona fide evidence citing, dating and detailing his actual involvement, I can't agree with your premise that CBM played an active, if not intimate, role in the routing, designing and constructing of Merion.

Your method is the same one employed by Tom MacWood.
Propose a theory and if it can't be disproved, that proves it.
That's not valid reasoning.

Your theory may be interesting, but, it has no scientific basis or support.

Citing vague and nebulous references while not being able to cite specifics is meaningless.

And, if anything, Whigham's written word that CBM designed Merion is preposterous and should show you that just because something was written, doesn't make it accurate and/or factual.

When you can cite detailed specifics your premise will gain credibility, until then, it's just another interesting theory.

[JESII]

David,

Your point #4 in that post is absurd when you consider the extensive changes the course went through right from the outset until about 1934.

It is also absurd that you have now taken as proof that Hugh Wilson could not have traveled overseas earlier than your 1912 manifest suggestion. You have strong evidence, but using the words...

We now also now know that the links influence which so many have recognized in the layout of Merion east probably did not come from Wilson's trip abroad

...is not accurate.

It would be pretty difficult to describe the exact golf course in conjunction with any of the writings quoted throughout these threads. So to take away the links influence is preposterous. Especially when your substitute is the CBM influence to a degree clearly not represented on the ground.

[CHrisB]

David,

I think people are generally willing to change their understanding of the history of Merion IF sufficient new evidence is found.

I think what most here seem to be saying (including me) is that the new evidence that has been found, while interesting and potentially important, is not sufficient to change the understanding of who did what in the design and construction of Merion East.

I think the perception here is that some new evidence has been found that raises interesting new theoretical possibilities, but that it is not even close to being convincing enough to alter the historical record, and that you are arriving at your conclusions by making leaps in logic and focusing heavily on a few pieces of evidence instead of looking at the entire body of evidence.

You've been hanging in there a long time with the same basic position despite almost unanimous opposition. I wasn't around the DG then but I understand that Tom MacWood faced similar opposition when he posited that the historical record of George Crump's death was inaccurate, but he pressed on and ultimately changed the historcial record by uncovering the death certificate, etc. That may be motivation for you, I'm not sure (certainly it would be sweet to prove everyone wrong)--but Tom MacWood wasn't able to change the historical record until he produced the evidence, and you won't be able to either until you produce the evidence. (You'll know, as Tom did, when you produce enough evidence because the opposition will dissipate. I'll be the first to say "well done" if you get to that point--small consolation I know! ).

But talking your way through this isn't going to work, and as long as you take that approach there will be this endless cycle of interpreting words and splitting hairs. I'd suggest either writing up your conclusions and getting them out in the public for critical review, or shelving the discussion until you (or someone) can find enough new evidence to forward the discussion.

(Don't get me wrong, though--I'm that you started this whole series of Merion discussions, I've learned a lot, and I think this sort of thing is exactly what this website should be about--but I just think we've reached the point where everyone's just spinning their wheels, no one is going to budge, and nothing else new is coming out.)

[CHrisB]

David,

Another observation why you might be meeting with so much resistance here...

When I worked in cancer research, any studies we did or articles we authored were subject to a peer review process before publication.

I can only imagine what the response would be if, after our peers offered their opinions on our methodologies or conclusions, and we didn't like what they said, we were to go back to them and say "Well, we think you are all wrong".

Now, of course you can't really compare cancer research and GCA historical research (GCA is much more important! ), but I sense that there is a feeling here that you have taken your hypothesis to your peers, you have gotten feedback from them that you don't agree with, and you're telling them "I am right, and you are all wrong". And not surprisingly that's turning some people off and may be motivation for some of the nastiness that has come out.

Now maybe you don't view people here in the DG as your "peers"--I don't know--and again your approach apparently did work for Tom MacWood w.r.t. Crump's death. But again nothing changed until he produced the evidence, and even then I don't sense much warmth for the approach he took to do it.

[TEPaul]

"This is quite a bit more than we knew when we started.  Yet your views and the views of others have not altered one bit.  You and others seem intent on protecting a static version of Merion lore no matter what evidence turns up.  It should be needless to say that this is not such an objective approach.  But maybe that is just my bias speaking."

David Moriarty:

Hold on a minute. You have a pretty facile way of saying "we" there. Who are you referring to?

Obviously you have learned a great deal since these threads began but I can tell you what Wayne and I have learned from these threads or at least what I have learned.

1. That Hugh Wilson went to GB in 1912. I did not know that before these threads began. However, as of now that does not necessarily mean to me he wasn't over there earlier and even if he wasn't I don't see it makes any difference anyway.

2. And I missed the fact that Hugh Wilson apparently had a topo map in Feb 1911 from that "agronomy letter" that I mentioned and posted a part of on here. But that certainly does not prove that Macdonald and the Committee worked on that map when they were at NLGA. That's your opinion. There is nothing in the Merion record to that effect, and there is nothing in the Wilson's words to that effect.

Most of the rest of what you said above that "we" now know I either disagree with or have known for years. I have always known that Macdonald came down here a few times and I have always known what the Wilsons and others said he did for Merion and the "Special Construction Committee". All the stuff that you've apparently learned is in Merion's archives, and we've known it for years.

So I haven't learned much from these threads I haven't known for years so I see no particular reason to change my opinion on the creation of Merion or due to anything you've produced.

Oh yes, I certainly did learn from Wayne when he went to the county courthouse recently that Merion bought the land a year or more earlier than everyone previously thought.

The point is you have constantly accused us of discounting and minimizing the involvement of Macdonald or Macdonald and Whigam in the creation of Merion and we have never done anything of the kind and we have always known everything that was ever said about them and Merion that has appeared on these threads.

You have in no way proven that we have discounted or minimized anything at all about the creation of Merion East or anyone who had anything to do with it and the fact is you never will prove that because you can't. We've never done that and we have known Merion's entire known record to this point for years.

But good luck in your on-going investigation of the creation of Merion East or whatever it is you think you're doing. It hasn't accomplished a thing to date and I don't see that it ever will.

[TEPaul]

"This is quite a bit more than we knew when we started.  Yet your views and the views of others have not altered one bit.  You and others seem intent on protecting a static version of Merion lore no matter what evidence turns up.  It should be needless to say that this is not such an objective approach.  But maybe that is just my bias speaking."

Not at all. We look at the whole thing objectively and we feel if anything of consequence turns up that might require a reanalysis of the record of Merion East we are all for it. This contention of you and Tom MacWood that Philadelphia is out to protect something is no less laughable than it always has been.  

"I am curious as to Doug's motives in this matter.  Any ideas?"

Yes, I do have an idea. I believe he feels that you are far less than objective regarding this entire subject as so many people on here seem to feel about you as well. It's always looked like you've had an agenda here that is not necessarily just to find out the truth about Merion. And it looks like your conclusions were pretty much pre-conceived which leads you to constantly only look at things that support your conclusions and to simply avoid the rest.

I think probably the best way to describe in a word what you have done on these Merion thread would be sophistry.

[TEPaul]

Regarding this story of Whigam's written word that Macdonald designed Merion, where is that written word? I asked for it about two weeks ago but no one responded. I've heard it said that Whigam mentioned that in his eulogy at Macdonald's funeral but what did he actually say? George Bahto told us a few years ago that Whigam mentioned in his eulogy to Raynor at his funeral that he designed Merion West, but what did Whigam actually say? I need to know a lot more about those remarks of Whigam's than just George Bahto said Whigam said......

[TEPaul]

Chris Brauner said:

"David,

Another observation why you might be meeting with so much resistance here...

When I worked in cancer research, any studies we did or articles we authored were subject to a peer review process before publication.

I can only imagine what the response would be if, after our peers offered their opinions on our methodologies or conclusions, and we didn't like what they said, we were to go back to them and say "Well, we think you are all wrong".

Now, of course you can't really compare cancer research and GCA historical research (GCA is much more important! ), but I sense that there is a feeling here that you have taken your hypothesis to your peers, you have gotten feedback from them that you don't agree with, and you're telling them "I am right, and you are all wrong". And not surprisingly that's turning some people off and may be motivation for some of the nastiness that has come out.

Now maybe you don't view people here in the DG as your "peers"--I don't know--and again your approach apparently did work for Tom MacWood w.r.t. Crump's death. But again nothing changed until he produced the evidence, and even then I don't sense much warmth for the approach he took to do it."



Chris:

You encapsulate and explain all that has happened on these Merion threads so well, in my opinion.

David Moriarty has come up with nothing new and nothing that we didn't know before other than the fact that Wilson went to GB in 1912, which I doubt makes any difference anyway even if he did not go earlier which of course we still don't know.

But what has annoyed us here is most of David Moriarty's hypothesis on these Merion threads is that we here have somehow discounted and minimized Macdonald's involvement in Merion. We just don't believe we've ever done anything like that, and we have always known all that has been put on these threads about that.

But David Moriarty just keeps on splitting hairs and arguing with us always implying that we have discounted and minimized Macdonald somehow.

As Pat said he has, we here have always had real respect for Macdonald anyway and certainly have never tried to minimize anything he ever did in anything much less with Merion.

We've never discounted or minimized anything about Macdonald, we just think the record is pretty clear about what he did and what Wilson and his committee did. We think it's been clear for years and nothing has been produced on these threads that should cause us or Merion to reanalyze its creation and who did what, in my opinion.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I am curious as to Doug's motives in this matter.  Any ideas?  

You could ask me directly, I speak English-

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, everything I listed above was new to you as well as to me.  Unless of course you guys were just wasting everyone's time for the entire first thread by holding out that Alan Wilson docucument that you claimed you found around the time you posted it.  
Were you hiding the ball there?  If so, why?"

David:

That's just another good example of what your problem is on here and what Chris Brauner was talking about on his post above.

First of all, I think it would probably be a good idea if you let people TELL YOU what THEY THINK and what THEY BELIEVE rather than YOU TRYING TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY THINK and WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

I've said to you a few times on these threads that it's just fine by me if you tell me what you believe, whatever that may be but you really do have to cut out this shit of TELLING ME WHAT I THINK AND WHAT I BELIEVE!

I know exactly what all I knew coming into these threads and I know what I know now. What I've learned I listed above.

Apparently what you failed to see is that I said some of what you listed above I DO NOT AGREE with and I never have.

The other problem you have on here is you propose or hypothesize on some things and despite getting no real support or agreement on them from others on here you just act as if you proved something anyway and got general agreement on it.

You didn't and you haven't and that list of yours is not all fact and what is left of it is no new revelation to me either.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

What you said in post #745 under that line is really pretty unfortunate. Stuff like that shouldn't be on this discussion group, and if it gets on here it's going to just cause problems on here. Do you want to do that again? I don't.

[TEPaul]

"Chris, I think you drastically overestimate the ability of some to deal with these things reasonably.  The Crump thing is a perfect example.  TEPaul tried to chase MacWood off he site for months and months.  Why?  Because Macwood had the nerve to research Crump.  It wasnt even Macwood who brought up the issue or offered a hypotheses.  TEPaul heard a rumor and came after him with both barrels."

David Moriarty:

That is simply a lie. You had nothing to do with that Crump and Pine Valley issue and you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

But if you want to put lies like that above on here it's going to cause some real problems, and I think you know that.  

[TEPaul]

"It was truly disgusting behavior and it is the same thing that is going on here. This is the third time that TEPaul has tried to run me off the site, and I am sure it will not be the last.  He and Wayne make it perfectly clear.  Stay away from our territory or we will come after you and come after you hard."

I'm not trying to run you off this site and I never have, David. I only told you I'd stay after your ass regarding the things you say on here that I believe are either untrue or just wrong.  

Now just try to calm down and stop getting so hysterical again.

[JESII]

Please tell me you're not stomping your feet while you type, David, please?

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Who is in Tom Paul's posse?  

Is Coorshaw in it?  

Will he attack people, unprovoked, and bite them in the genitals?  (Coorshaw)

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

What the hell are you doing ?

Just when I have the contentiousness down to a flame out, you go and throw gasoline on it.

WHY ?

You should have stuck to the issues.

[TEPaul]

David, come on now, that post #751 is not necessary and shouldn't be on here. Just calm down.

All I've done today is disagree with you, and I've mentioned why I think you've carried on as you have on these threads. Those are my opinions. If you don't like them, then I'm sorry about that but opinions are what this place is about. I haven't been rude to you today, I've only said what I believe about this Merion issue and what I think you're doing with it. Do you think that's rude?

Just try not to ratchet things up with posts like #751. We don't want another war on here.

Calm down.

[JESII]

David,

I have posted more than once (not near as politely as Pat Mucci) on these threads requesting the two of you to grow up and have a normal freakin' discussion on these topics or just stop posting on these threads.

You're pissed at them and they're pissed at you. It started before these threads did because you took them head on from the outset. I have told them in private that I thought they acted poorly but don't take that as a win because you have been every bit the embarrasment to this website as they have throughout. Different method maybe, but no more beneficial.

You do have interesting questions here, and for me I enjoy the discussions because I am familiar with Merion. Familiarlty always makes the conversation more interesting to me. But you started this entire episode with an agenda and while I think you have been successful to an extent you have sacrificed much of your own credibility in doing so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,[size=16x]
TAKE A BREATH

JUST BREATHE[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Please, let's not take any more steps backwards after you inhale.

[Tom Huckaby]

David,

Take a step back and just [size=16x]

BREATH[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Please, let's not take any steps backwards after you inhale.

Never thought I'd ever post in any of this, but one has to love the great Notre Dame education not including spelling.... especially when using such huge fonts....

I'ts BREATHE, Patrick.

 

PS - I'll delete this so the world can see only your edited post if you wish, but for your penance you need to add "Santa Clara is where I really wanted to go to school but I couldn't get in" at the bottom of the edited post.  Failing that this post stays.

 

[TEPaul]

Thank you Tom Huckaby. There needed to be some humor on here after that outbreak.

Patrick, I don't know what the hell kind of fonts you have up there in North Jersey but that great BIG BLUE ONE really hurt my ears pal. Do you have a font so big it could just like swallow one of these threads sort of like a Black Hole or a BLUE HOLE, as it were??

[TEPaul]

Tom Huckaby, don't you dare delete that post of yours!!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby, don't you dare delete that post of yours!!!

He knows what he needs to do.  Come on Tom, what are the chances of him ever writing what I requested?

 

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I am curious as to Doug's motives in this matter.  Any ideas?  

You could ask me directly, I speak English-

David,

  My motives are specifically that I don't feel you're being intellectually honest here.  Yes, you started with a hypothesis, an angle, if you will, but made several other loaded comments that made me question your motives for doing the research and making the statements that you did.  

I am in concert with Jim's post at 5:35 pm that you started with an agenda.  I don't need to rehash it.  It's obvious.