[TEPaul]

David:

Having you back on here is like a bad deya vu, Im sorry to say, particularly as I'm the one you said invited you to return. Doesn't it occur to you that just about every thread you have ever been on on this website just degnerates after a few pages to all about you and how others are rude and unfair to you?

That infrequently happens on this website with others when you aren't around. This isn't about architecture or truth and honesty and facts and civil discussion on it.  It's always about ME, ME, ME whenever your name appears on any thread on GOLFCLUBATLAS. I know there are a ton of participants on here who want to know why that is and want to stop it. I think we all offered an olive branch here but you haven't done anything of the kind in your two or three days on here, and obviously that must be because you can't see one inch beyond just ME, ME, ME!

I, for one, don't want to deal with your irrelevant posts and points of which nothing is new from a year ago.

On the subject of Merion and Macdonald I hope everyone goes to PeterP's thread and points on them and discusses those and I sure hope you don't get on that thread and devolve that one into ME, ME, ME too.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

What can I say. . .  maybe I just bring out the best in people. 

But for clarification, the vulgar threads you deleted insulted others, not me, me, me.  You were kind enough to leave your insults directed toward me up, and I thank you for it.   

Plus, the posts that digress have other common denominators besides me.   

And Tom, please do not feel responsible for my return, as you had little to do with it.   I had been discussing the matter with other posters for a while when you made your kind invitation.

David:

Having you back on here is like a bad deya vu, Im sorry to say, particularly as I'm the one you said invited you to return. Doesn't it occur to you that just about every thread you have ever been on on this website just degnerates after a few pages to all about you and how others are rude and unfair to you?

That infrequently happens on this website with others when you aren't around. This isn't about architecture or truth and honesty and facts and civil discussion on it.  It's always about ME, ME, ME whenever your name appears on any thread on GOLFCLUBATLAS. I know there are a ton of participants on here who want to know why that is and want to stop it. I think we all offered an olive branch here but you haven't done anything of the kind in your two or three days on here, and obviously that must be because you can't see one inch beyond just ME, ME, ME!

I, for one, don't want to deal with your irrelevant posts and points of which nothing is new from a year ago.

On the subject of Merion and Macdonald I hope everyone goes to PeterP's thread and points on them and discusses those and I sure hope you don't get on that thread and devolve that one into ME, ME, ME too.

[Michael Dugger]

History ought to be told truthfully, that's all I am saying, even when it upsets the upper crust.

I have never found any method of truth seeking to be "unethical."

If we don't know the whole truth, how can we learn what to and not to do in the future?

Whether it's the truth behind the death of the founder of a rich and elite golf club like Pine Valley or the truth behind the death of a nobody like me. 

The truth is what's most important to history.  I am offended when someone suggests otherwise. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

What can I say. . .  maybe I just bring out the best in people."

David:

There you go----a little humor! Mark Twain claimed that never hurt anyone. I'm sorry this all happened again like this but it just seems unavoidable for whatever reasons around your Merion subjects or maybe any subjects and I guess nobody's blameless. So, I think we should probably just put them in limbo with you for a while.

Sorry about that. 

[TEPaul]

Michael Dugger:

I'm all for the truth too but do you think there is absolutely nothing that should not be said or done by people like those on here with what they think are facts and truths of various golf clubs without ever even thinking of how it may make the clubs and people from them feel?

I'm all for truth in architecture or whatever but I hope I still have some feeling and consideration left for others in the seeking of it.

[RJ_Daley]

Once again I find myself scratching my head trying to figure out the underlying emotion that causes such vitriol from gentlemen almost all of whom I have met, played golf and had delightful pub and grub with.  With the exception of Wayne and Tom Mac, whom I still have not had the pleasure of meeting, yet I have little doubt that they too would be fine gentlemen to know.  What really drives these contentions on these subjects surrounding Merion and PV histories of their founders?  

Not being familiar with academia and contentious debate over research theories on various matters of science and sociology, I have heard that such food fights break out in that world fairly often.   Could it be that what is underlying the axis of conflict on these subjects is that there are soon to be published books or periodical publications from both sides, David's and we know that Wayne and Tom have their Flynn project that perhaps has a spin off into Merion? Are each side of these matters lying the ground work of some revelation, that will be an eye opener to the narrow golf architecture centric world of a few hundred or 1000 truly interested potential consumers of founding figures of golf histories?  

Mike Dugger, I do believe you are correct in your thoughts on the relentless march to find truth in history.  Such pursuit can't be made in the genteel dignity of sympathetic feelings for the heirs to a figure that has been cast into the limelight of being a transcendent personality of a movement, even something as mundane by comparison to world events, as a golf architecture movement.

What I pity the future historians, and what probably perplexes those reconstructing the history of anything past, is the folks that spin and misunderstand their own present.   When they get it jumbled up in contemporaneous real time for ego and special interest motives, the poor historian must try to sift and winnow the truth in a sea of lies.  For such, the poor historian of 2120 will be challenged to figure out what the hell went on in Iraq.  But thanks to GCA.com, one ought to get a good consensus on BallyNeal and Sebonack's relative importance to the history of GCA in the 21rst century!  

[Lou_Duran]

Wow!  I think it was Brad Klein who once made a reference to the tendency of academics to fight with great ferocity over the most mundane, inconsequential topics or points.  In trying to understand the point of this whole discussion in the original thread, I asked if there is anything about Merion that suggested Macdonald's involvement.  Are/were there some design features at Merion which resemble those at NGLA or some other work attributed to CBM?  Did CBM make claims or otherwise question Merion's design accreditation?  If the answer to either of these two questions is No, isn't this thread much to do about nothing?

By the way, I missed the whole thing about Tom MacWood discovering Crump's suicide.  Can someone link the thread for me?  My first reaction to this new information was that nothing relevant or positive could have come out of Tom's revelations.  But upon further reflection, I suppose his form of death is pertinent to gca in the context that whatever drove him to this end may have had an effect on how he designed and built his course.  Are there other reasons why knowing "the truth" is more important than leaving things as they were?

[Peter Pallotta]

Lou -

I think the issue/point you just raised probably colours my thoughts on this whole debate (and related topics) even more than I realize.

I think it's great fun to try to go "deeper" in understanding the dynamics of how and why architects create what they do; but I just can't see how anything good came out of sharing with the world maybe the most personal and profound moment of a man's life (i.e. his death), especially when it was probably clear to anyone that it was something neither that man nor those closest to him wanted shared.

If we were talking about a psychologist who'd always affirmed the meaning of life but then took his own life, I'd say knowing that might be relevant. But here?

Maybe I have a guilty conscious, as I've probably tried in the past to pry out "the truth" about things that I knew (or should've known) were none of my business.

As someone once said: "It's a foolish man who tries to see how something works by breaking it in two".

Peter

Edit - and I say this basically agreeing with Rich, i.e. that Tom's essay was well done and in a sympathetic tone.

[Rich Goodale]

Lou

Look in the "In My Opinion" section.  It is a well thought out and tasteful piece of writing.

Rich

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,

Do you recall the title of Tom's piece containing the information regarding Mr. Crump?  It does not jump out at me.  Thanks.

[john_stiles]

Yesterday I questioned why George Crump's much-reported 3 month trip to play and study courses overseas in 1910 wasn't found either.

I was informed earlier this morning that George Crump didn't come up in a search of manifests because his name was spelled wrong!!   

As to Crump.............

Regarding travel research,   I did come across a note in the Philadelphia Inquirer stating that  George A. Crump  and  Joseph A. Baker did travel to Europe on Hamburg-American Line in 1910.   

The ship, in this time frame,  would have stopped in Southhampton.

This was not in the Sports section per se, and was listed near the Sport section.

The various ship lines and schedules were listed on the same page.  Many days listed some of the travelers and some did not list anyone.  I presume only the social elite and such would merit being listed in the newspaper.

Of course, travels were listed in the social section as well. 

Well, anyway,  the note about Crump and Baker was printed in the newspaper, spelled correctly, etc.     It just listed their names with no article or description of the travel.  It just listed their names, along with many other names.

I could not remember if I had posted this before, and so wanted to post.

Difficult work to look at daily newspapers on the microfilm.

Would imagine that Hugh Wilson would have made the ‘social' cut and would have been listed.   The purpose of my review was  to somehow find Wilson's name listed through newspaper accounts,   and I stumbled across this single line about Crump.

It would have been so easy to miss a mention of Wilson's travel.

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

Rich,

Do you recall the title of Tom's piece containing the information regarding Mr. Crump?  It does not jump out at me.  Thanks.

Lou,

Here is the link : http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood7.html

A great piece by Tom MacWood.

[Lou_Duran]

Sebastien,

Thanks for the link, and for not digging at me for my obvious lack of attention to detail.  I marvel at those who can gleen the important tidbits from ship manifests and ancient archived materials.  TMac's piece, I am sure, will make for great reading later today.

[DMoriarty]

To Michael Dugger and ALL:

Pardon me while I regress a bit to mention something that has been bothering me.

Michael, because many other posters saw it, you should know that you too were personally attacked last night for expressing your opinion on this thread.   The content of the post was removed this morning seemingly by the poster who must have been embarrassed by his own behavior.  Too little too late as far as I am concerned.

While others may not know,  some of you witnessed that MacWood was once again viscously attacked in a post containing many falsehoods about his Crump research.   That post was removed this morning as well so I am sure many are left scratching their heads.   

That is part of the problem with this hit-and-run bullying.   Obnoxious attacks appear, many read them, and then they miraculously disappear, leaving the witnesses and targets little to do but go on as if nothing happened.   Or, as in Michael's case, the target might never even know or have a chance to respond.   

Another good example was the TEPaul's diatribe at MacWood, mentioned above.   Never mind that it was full of falsehoods,  those who read it may now have a largely distorted view of what happened with the Crump issue.   

Michael, I made of copy of the nasty post directed to you as well as the other personal attacks that have now been deleted.   I'd like to post the portion directed to you (edited so as to not further disseminate falsehoods) because it is a stunning glimpse of what posters are up against if they dare take on the legends of the dead clubmen of greater Philadelphia.

Since the post was aimed at you, Michael, I thought I'd get your permission first.  The post speaks volumes about the poster. 
___________________

TEPaul:

You are mistaken when you say "I guess nobody's blameless."    In this instance Michael Dugger takes no blame for your insults last night, nor does Tom MacWood   As for me, I have not treated you or anyone else unfairly since I have been back.     


When you post nasty diatribes in the middle of the night, know that  I will copy them and post them the next day.  Perhaps this will aid you in controlling your less admirable tendencies. 
_________________________


I actually consider myself lucky that posters hate me enough to leave their nasty posts up for all to see.   At least then I am in the loop and can respond if I so choose!

Good Luck.

DM

[TEPaul]

RJ;

This post on my side of the circumstances of the Crump suicide research was for you and in answer to your question. As these kinds of posts seem to create controversy on here I'm taking it off since you've seen it but I have it copied and if you want to see it again I will send it to you or put it back on.

[RJ_Daley]

Do you think that also falls into the context of truth and honesty?

Of course I do, Tom.   I, and I'm sure all here on GCA.com that have followed this, don't doubt your sincere feelings for the maintenance of privacy and respect for the reputation of Crump at all.  Nor do I doubt your concerns for that town Manager's position.  Yet, I also respect Tom Mac for his thorough report on the matters involving PV, and its historical and legendary architect/developer. 

Perhaps if Crump were of the nearly anonymous stature of the owner, designer, developer of a golf course right here down the road from me, which is just a fair countryside track of no particular groundbreaking architectural merit, no one would even find the issue of a suicide interesting or relavant to the issue of who the designer was. 

But Crump, rather than this anonymous guy, became a bit of a legend.  He became the one-trick pony that just happened to develope, design, build, one of the most (if not 'the' most) significant course in the history of GCA.  That is a singular achievement that rightfully causes many to want to know what is in a man's DNA, his personality, his soul, that could allow the 'novice' designer to achieve that lofty masterpiece.  What drove him?

We can't exactly know all of that without perhaps considering the big final act of his life.  It would be still more insightful to know just know how the final act was played out, but why?  Was it sickness and pain, or knowledge of impending health or financial doom?  Or, the quirk of a man who may have realised he hit a rare pinnicle in life that was that he thought there is nothing left to do.  (of course I suggest none of those actual motives, just adding the notions for consideration)

If fact Tom, you assign the characterization of opprobrium to the act.  I understand that it might be held in opprobrium in many or most circles, yet the act has other motivations, noble at times, merciful at times, senseless and sad at times.  But, I don't think it is a singularly shameful act. (putting any ideas of religious values aside - as many don't hold such).  Think Socretes....

I just don't call your honesty or integrity into question on this matter any more than I do Tom Mac's, absent any overt and stunning revelations to the contrary... and at least in my mind, the episode with gleaning the info from the town manager doesn't rise to that, particularly considering a death cert., and cause of death is public record, as are arrest records and many other sorts of markers to inform on a person's history. 

[Sean_A]

I too can't even begin to fathom what David has stated that warrants such harsh responses from normally quite well behaved and intentioned contributors.  I can only put it down to communications I have missed for whatever reason.  Even so, some of the responses are well ott and should stop immediately.  Does this stuff really mean that much?  1 trip, 2 trips, a bit of CB Mac, a little bit less of CB Mac.  Is anybody seriously doubting that Wilson should not be the main man of record for Merion?  This is the bottom line question.  If its no, then everybody agrees much more than they disagree.  If this is the case, why such vitriol?  If anybody is suggesting that Wilson wasn't the main man, lets wait and see what comes out - does anybod have a bus to catch?  Give a chap a break for crying out loud.  Its not like David slapped your wife and from a impartial pov, David has been treated (on both mega Merion threads) much worse than he has his accusers.  Perhaps you lot got a funny batch of Philly beer!  I suggest you switch a decent red ale.  Perhaps a fine bottle Dao followed by sex in a bottle - otherwise known as Takai.

Ciao

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean,

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to flat-out refuse your offer of sexual favors, no matter how well-intentioned.   

[TEPaul]

RJ:

An extremely thoughtful post!

But maybe one had to hear it and experience it and not just have it told.

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Regarding your post #117 you will have to ask David Moriarty what point he is trying to make by questioning the accuracy of the dates of Wilson trips abroad and such but our take on it is he's been questioning the accuracy of the architectural record of Merion for some purpose and judging from those old Merion threads his contention is that C.B. Macdonald (and Whigam's) contribution to the design and creation of Merion has been very much downplayed either unintentionally or intentionally over the years and perhaps very much today.

As to the extent of what he thinks those inaccuracies are and what they mean as far as Macdonald and Whigam's part is concerned you will have to ask him.

As for our part (The Philadelphians ) we believe that Hugh Wilson and his committee and their foremen created Merion East and West on their own and probably with no direct aid from Macdonald et al other than what both Wilsons stated in their reports on the creation of Merion which was the significance of that visit Wilson (and perhaps a number of committee members) made to NGLA for two days. We are certainly not saying that Macdonald and Whigam did not come to Philadelphia a few times and look over the course (we have all been aware of those visits for years), just that that is no evidence or indication at all of some significant design contribution on their part.

In other words, I, for one, am with you that although it is interesting when Wilson went abroad and perhaps how often that does not have any bearing on what he and his committee actually did with the creation of Merion. We believe the reports on the creation of Merion by both Wilson brothers (Hugh's in 1916 and Alan's in 1926) are both honest and historically accurate. We find no reasons to believe otherwise.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Regarding your post #117 you will have to ask David Moriarty what point he is trying to make by questioning the accuracy of the dates of Wilson trips abroad and such but our take on it is he's been questioning the accuracy of the architectural record of Merion for some purpose and judging from those old Merion threads his contention is that C.B. Macdonald (and Whigam's) contribution to the design and creation of Merion has been very much downplayed either unintentionally or intentionally over the years and perhaps very much today.

As to the extent of what he thinks those inaccuracies are and what they mean as far as Macdonald and Whigam's part is concerned you will have to ask him.

As for our part (The Philadelphians ) we believe that Hugh Wilson and his committee and their foremen created Merion East and West on their own and probably with no direct aid from Macdonald et al other than what both Wilsons stated in their reports on the creation of Merion which was the significance of that visit Wilson (and perhaps a number of committee members) made to NGLA for two days. We are certainly not saying that Macdonald and Whigam did not come to Philadelphia a few times and look over the course (we have all been aware of those visits for years), just that that is no evidence or indication at all of some significant design contribution on their part.

In other words, I, for one, am with you that although it is interesting when Wilson went abroad and perhaps how often that does not have any bearing on what he and his committee actually did with the creation of Merion. We believe the reports on the creation of Merion by both Wilson brothers (Hugh's in 1916 and Alan's in 1926) are both honest and historically accurate. We find no reasons to believe otherwise.

Tom

I spose my larger point was to drink vino and be merry!  My secondary point, and one that I have asked all along, why do people think a well heeled and connected guy like Wilson could not create a Merion - especially given that there was some trial and error?  Finally, does it matter much that Wilson may have acted on advice from CB Mac or that he may have reworked ideas from the UK?  It would seem to be common sense to take advantage of resources, but that is a long way away from saying that the driving force behind and in front of a project should share credit unless he wants to.  Thats how life works, besides, I am not sure membes back then would have been thinking in terms of "sharing credit".  People would have got stuck in and not worried about accolades - why should they have - there was no money in it and all the accolades needed would have been shared out over drinks. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - that last post of yours seems to me the sanest and simplist and most accurate of all.

I'm not a researcher, I'm just a reader (of posts on here and of a small portion of the primary sources).

Your take on the various parts of this topic jibes with mine almost exactly....for what that's worth.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Tom

I spose my larger point was to drink vino and be merry!  My secondary point, and one that I have asked all along, why do people think a well heeled and connected guy like Wilson could not create a Merion - especially given that there was some trial and error?  Finally, does it matter much that Wilson may have acted on advice from CB Mac or that he may have reworked ideas from the UK?  It would seem to be common sense to take advantage of resources, but that is a long way away from saying that the driving force behind and in front of a project should share credit unless he wants to.  Thats how life works, besides, I am not sure membes back then would have been thinking in terms of "sharing credit".  People would have got stuck in and not worried about accolades - why should they have - there was no money in it and all the accolades needed would have been shared out over drinks."


Sean:

Your sensibilities expressed above are exactly the same as ours. 

Because of them it should occur to almost anyone, I think, just how seemingly preposterous the apparent claims or implications David Moriarty is trying to make here really are.

There was a time that he was apparently implying if Wilson did not go abroad before 1912 that must somehow indicate Macdonald and Whigam had to have helped Wilson and his committee more in the actual design and construction of Merion East for the simple reason they could not have done it themselves. I think most all can now see that does not necessarily follow----it is just not very logical an assumption or conclusion to make.

Now David Moriarty may be backing off that claim or implication and concentrating on the need for his investigation to prove that there are historical inaccuracies in the Merion record. Maybe there are some, and if there are they're probably not much different or more important than any other club or course of that era and age.

So, I don't know, Sean, what this really is all about or ever has been. But I do know that most of us around here support the accuracy of those two Wilson brother's reports on the creation of Merion. We see no reason at all to doubt them or suspect them of reporting inaccuracies or minimizing any roll Macdonald played in it.

But if David Moriarty feels otherwise let him state his case clearly and back it up with something concrete and then we can dissuss that and the significance of it. To most of us here it's pretty much that simple and that's why we've been asking him to offer something new if he has something. Pat seems to think he has something so let's wait and see.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I, too, welcome you back.

I agree with your ascertion that Mike C.'s research of passenger manifests has been a limited one, but just because yours has encompassed a greater range and more and larger lists in no way should be taken to mean that it has been either complete or even close to it.

For example, in the original Merion thread from way back when, I challenged you on this very point and gave the example of Tilly's travels to Scotland. I once again did a search of the ancestry.com records (this is the one that you use) and under the name Albert Tillinghast there are only 2 records of ocverseas travel. 1 to Scotland and 1 coming back from Mexico in November of 1933.

We have known for quite sometime that tilly went to Scotland in 1895, 1898 & 1901, yet the manifests on ancestry.com appear incomplete. In addition, just this past Saturday I found a mention of an earlier trip to Scotland, written by Tilly in the American Golfer, thattook place between 1888 to 1892.

No mention of this one either.

I don't see how relience on the ship manifests records, at least at this point, can do anything other than show occasions WHEN a trip occurred. I fail to see how they can be used to prove that something that has been at least hinted at DIDN'T.

Please let me know if I am simply not searching ancestry.com properly. I looked under New York & Boston passenger lists (by the way guys there are a number of possible Hugh Wilsons leaving from Boston in the latter part of the first decade that might fit him traveling) and even passport requests.

By the way, I knew of Tilly's 1933 mexico trip but never knew he went by boat! I wouldn't have found that without today's search and so must credit you for that as it fills in a very important piece of timeline in something I am currently researching.

[DMoriarty]

Philip,

Thanks for your welcome.  I responded on the other thread. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()