In an IM communication one of the site's frequent contributors offered this evaluation of the Merion threads;
"So far as I can tell, these threads seem to focus on creating doubt as a defense attorney would. So far as I am concerned, some doubt already exists. The focus should be on mitigating that doubt so far as Wilson is concerned. It is clear that Wilson is the best bet so why not first look for info which further credits him as the architect before exploring other avenues? If giant holes exist or if some compelling evidence was found which should change the thought process, then I could understand what altering the thought process (sic; should be for)."
I think that's an excellent thought and so I would like to offer something of an "in-round swing change", as it were, on these Merion threads.
Can we get back to what the real question under discussion on these Merion threads is or should be? Here is at least one:
1/ Is the history of Merion's architecture, particularly the architecture of the so-called first phase--eg 1910-1915---- as far as Wilson and the Merion Construction Committee's part in it and Macdonald/Whigam's part in it is concerned as accurate as it's been portrayed by Merion from the beginning to date or is it not? And if it's not what specifically is inaccurate about it?
It seems to me this contributor is exactly right above when he said: ".... these threads seem to focus on creating doubt as a defense attorney would."
It seems to me David Moriarty who is a lawyer is attempting to do exactly that---eg as a defense attorney would, create doubt about the accuracy of Merion's recorded architectural history and to create doubt about the credibility of the ones responsible for it. It seems pretty clear from these Merion threads that he tried first to create doubt any way he could, for instance the mis-measurement of the 10th hole, doubt about the local roots of Philly architecture preceding Merion and Merion’s place in that, doubt about the credence given by some of us here today to the remarks made by the likes of Robert Lesley over what he meant by an "Alps" hole etc.
Frankly, I'm certain there is a ton of historical material surrounding the history of the architectural creation of Merion that David Moriaty isn't very familiar with such as the Wilson reports. We, here, think he should be intimately familiar with those Wilson reports, particularly Alan Wilson's, if he wants to open up the foregoing historical interpretations by Merion and us here. Otherwise this will continue to be an exercise in attempting to caste doubt on Merion and those of us here with petty and trivial methods and for petty and trivial reasons. At least that certainly is the way we see it.
We would be delighted to find out anything new about the history of Merion or to undercover any interesting old material or new material. That has been what Wayne and I, particularly Wayne, has been doing for about seven years now and literally over thousands of hours.
Does David Moriarty want to take advantage of all that research as it pertains perhaps to the point of this question before us about Wilson and his Committee and Macdonald/Whigam and their part in Merion East or does he want to continue to try to just create doubt on Merion and us first before he makes some point that even he doesn't even seem sure of at this point?
If any of you want to look at the history of the creation of Merion between, particularly 1910-1915, the very best thing we can put before us, in my opinion, is Alan Wilson’s report in 1926 on the creation of Merion. Nothing from that time tracks the history of events from beginning to that time as comprehensively as that report does.
To continue to neglect or to dismiss that report is both a poor research method and pretty poor scholarship on the subject at hand. The fact that Moriarty has NOT even asked for it to be produced in a year and a half on here but has also dismissed it when it was mentioned and neglected the mention of it when it was mentioned is very telling, I think.