The importance of understanding the details of Mr Francis' Merion landswap story

[TEPaul]

"lets remember that the Francis telling of the epic tale occurred about 30 years after the fact in the club history".

It was closer to 40 years after the fact, JeffB. But his story telling almost 40 years after the fact isn't really just on its own any more because in a pretty clear way it's reflected in those MCC meeting minutes from 1911. When one thinks about it, it really is pretty cool how all this source material plays out some of these events we've been aware of for so long in sort of peripheral ways.



"Actually, as I pointed out a coupla days ago, you were the only one who understood exactly what Tom Paul meant way back on page one.
I don't know if that's a good thing or not.   


You see that, JeffB? You and me are the only smart guys on this board and all the rest on here are a bunch of swine-mongerers or troglodytes wandering around in the wilderness behind that Northern Plains Indian tribe knows as the Wathafuquawees!

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

As you and MC "Hammer" discovered, my math before coffee skills are suspect.

Out of nothing but curiosity, I would love to see a piece that is based on MCC minutes and contemporary documents. I doubt there will ever be a speculation free history of Merion, but it should be able to be greatly reduced.

Does your newfound tone your previous post signify you are simply getting away from the "childish humor" as suggested by DM, or that the review of the MCC minutes actually paints an even more complex picture than you originally thought?

I laid that old Johnny Carson "Wathafuquawee Indians" joke on my kids recently and they thought it was hilarious, once they got it.  Now, my spelling may be as good as my math but, I thought it was "Wedefuguawi."

While on the topic of old native american humor, I've been told that vegetarian was an old Chippewa word meaning "lousy hunter."

[DMoriarty]

"Still, if past is prologue, then my understanding of what happened with the various land exchanges and swaps is probably more accurate than theirs even though they have the documents and I do not.   These guys haven't a clue as to how to read these documents, and in the past they have just assumed documents said what they hoped that they said.   
- Last year TEPaul claimed that one such deed conclusively proved that Merion had purchased the land for the golf course in June 1909.   I didn't believe him at the time, but when I asked him for details he basically said that is for me to know and you to find out.  You don't expect us to do all your research for you, do you?     
- Wayne apparently thought the same deed not only documented the sale of the golf course land, but a tract of probably over 1000 acres of land in total, stretching from the railroad almost all the way to the West Course.
-In reality the deed described a conveyance of a 70 acre parcel north of the course from one investment vehicle (a trust) to another (a corporation)  for negligible consideration ($1.)   Likely the same parties were principles of each, and none were affiliated with Merion or Lloydd."


We would appreciate it if anyone on these threads, including David Moriarty, could point out to us whatever the mistakes are in interpretation we've made in the last year or at any time about the financial dealings of Horatio Gates Lloyd and his MCC investor group previous to the finalization of the purchase of the Merion East ground.

To do that those mistakes should not just be referred to on a thread indirectly, the way David Moriarty did above; they should be found, and brought up and cited. That will give us the opportunity to correct them. That's the only way we can deal with them properly and correct mistakes we've made in the past. Furthermore, we have no problem at all correcting our mistakes and admitting that we made them, and more importantly, in my opinion, why we made them!!

Is this a joke?   For years you and others have been claiming that Merion bought the property in 1909, and trying to push back true dates of both the NGLA trip and Wilson's travel abroad based on this misrepresentation.   My guess is that you alone have hundreds if not thousands of posts on this alone.

But since you want an example, I'll give you one that goes beyond simply a misunderstanding into the realm of outright lying to try and make your point.  And that is giving you be benefit of the doubt, because if you were not intentionally lying, then you guys are the world's worst historical researchers, and have absolutely no ability to accurately understand or convey this information.   


Quote from TEPaul Jan. 10, 2006 (with my bolds added):

By the way, Wayne went to the county Court House and to the Recorder of Deeds and discovered that Merion Cricket Club bought the land on Ardmore Ave that was to become Merion East not towards the end of 1910 (approximately the time Macdonald is said to have first visited the site) but in June of 1909.

That would appear to throw everything back over a year. Maybe Wilson went to see Macdonald as early as 1909. And it would certainly appear if the end of 1910 was the first time Macdonald came to Philadelphia to look at the site which has been reported on here a few times that he certainly didn't have any oversight as to whether the site was acceptable for a golf course.

Furthermore, if Wilson had gone to see Macdonald at NGLA a lot early (perhaps in 1909) he most certainly would've had plenty of time to go to GB before beginning to build the golf course in the spring and summer of 1911.

David Moriarty:
. . .
And isn't it interesting that you did not even acknowledge that now we have established that the land in Ardmore which was to become Merion East was bought in June of 1909 instead of in 1910as we all have assumed it was. Some on here, perhaps yourself, have suggested that Macdonald may've come here to Philadelphia to approve the site for a golf course. Can we now establish Macdonald came here for that purpose in 1909 rather than in the end of 1910?

It would seem that could push this entire scenario of Merion East back to a year before. But yet you don't even acknowledge that discovery. I wonder why?

Last night I posted that Wayne went to the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county courthouse and discovered the property was bought by Merion over a year earlier than anyone heretofore knew. Can you imagine what that may mean about when Wilson may've visited NGLA?

David Moriarty read that post and just avoided that subject altogether!! What does that tell you about where he's coming from on these threads??

And how do we even know that if Wilson went to NGLA in 1909 or 1910 he didn't go to GB right after that in 1909 or 1910? Has David Moriarty proven that Wilson didn't go to GB before the course's 1911 beginning just because he's said on here he thinks this Ancestry.com or his research of it is infallible??

I questioned TEPaul about this “proof” that Merion purchased the property in 1909.  Note my question and his answer below:

"TEPaul,

I am glad Wayne finally went down to check out the date of the purchase.  It is ironic, though, given that when I suggested you guys do this, I believe you scolded me for pursuing such arcane and pointless avenues  of research, and insisted that the land had obviously been purchased in 1910.  Nonetheless, it is nice to see you guys finally thinking a little bit outside the box.

I do have some questions regarding the records.  For example, who exactly bought the property in 1909?    I’ve read that it was a small group of members or maybe even a single member (Lloyd?) who made the purchase.  Was it Merion itself that bought the property in 1909, or the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, or an individual, or a group of individuals?    And did they also secure the other parcel (on a bluff overlooking the river) they were considering?"

You have some questions of us, do you Professor Moriarty? Do you suppose you might be able to find out some of this stuff for yourself?   

It truth, the deed in question makes no mention of Merion and did not involve the golf course property at all!  Yet Wayne copied the deed, and gave it to TEPaul to use as absolute proof that Merion purchased the property in 1909.

While I doubt Wayne was careless enough to write what TEPaul wrote, Wayne gave TEPaul the document and it is inconceivable that he was unaware of how TEPaul was using it.   I am not sure whether Wayne is lucky or unlucky to have TEPaul out there spreading lies and misinformation on Wayne's behalf and on behalf of Merion.

In fairness, the document did involve HDC (long before Merion or Lloyd had any involvement with them) and Wayne and TEPaul did entirely misunderstand the description of the actual parcel involved in the purchase.    The only reason they even understand it now is that I interpreted it for them.   When they still wouldn't believe me, I provided them with a step by step analysis and the atlases to back it up!

But this is entirely my point.  These guys have always read every document as if it favored their interpretation and beliefs,  whether the document actually supports their preconceived notions or not.  And therein lies my frustration.  Whatever their intentions, these guys have consistently ignored important parts of the historical record, or just flat out misinterpreted and/or misrepresented the historical record.   Yet we are supposed to rely on what they choose to tell us about the MCC documents?     

This is no way to to try and get to the truth!

[TEPaul]

When Wayne and/or I said that 2 1/2 to 1 1/2 years ago about that 1909 land indenture that is what we thought and now we know we were wrong. But we believe we know all the details of land purchases and land swaps now, when they happened and also why they happened in a particular way and that is our goal to finally track all the details to create an accurate timelining of all significant events in the history and architectural history report of Merion East and West. It will take us some time to write it comprehensively but it will all be done and into the archives of those clubs it will go.

Not to make any excuses but looking into this first phase of the creation of Merion East, and certainly into all this pretty complex land transactioning and business structuring by Lloyd and Cuylers, was not something we ever set out to research or record or write about.

It was not the history of Merion or even the history of Merion East's architecture of that first early phase (1911-12) we were trying to write, it was just the life and career of William Flynn we were researching and writing and he didn't appear on the Merion scene from Massachusetts until 1913. Oviously being so interconnected with Merion throughout his career we did write (Wayne did actually) a lot of the architectural history of Merion anyway from Flynn's arrival there on.

Had Flynn arrived at Merion in 1910 or 1911 and it appeared he had some significant part in its creation that early we probably would have looked in MCC's archives many years ago, but finding all Flynn's career plans and drawings somewhere else (in that barn in Bucks County) including so many for Merion was really most all that we needed to track his participation at Merion through the years.

As for the story that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months and from which he came back with numerous plans and drawings and survey maps and such we are tracking that backwards now to determine when it may've first been mentioned and why. And when we hit a time, previous to which, it was never mentioned by anyone that will certainly tell us something about that story. It's possible that story may've first appeared in Merion's history up to a half century after the events we are all studying now and if that's the case it is completely unimportant to what really happened back then, why and how.

And that is why with any club and course things like board meeting minutes are so valuable in these kinds of club and course history research because they involve the actual men involved in the subject at the time it's happening and they are talking about something they have just done, something they are currently doing or something they are about to do and how and some of the reasons why. It can't get any better than that and it is pretty cool to think you are looking right at the contemporaneous recordings of all this that was happening almost a century ago.

On my way home from Ardmore I also traveled down Club House Road again and how that land swap took place is even clearer now traveling that road with that specific subject in mind along it's entire length. And then I went around the corner onto Cooperstown Road and found Horatio Gates Lloyd's home Allgates. It was quite a place. He was definitely a bigshot.

[DMoriarty]

So let me get this straight.

You and Wayne thought the land was purchased in June 1909, but instead of coming forward with the "facts" that you erroneously thought supported your conclusion, you instead lied by claiming that the deed conclusively established that Merion bought the property in June of 1909?

Surely you could tell that the deed made no mention of Merion, couldn't you?  So you just lied about it because you figured that since you thought it was true it didn't matter?

I don't get it?  Especially because I strongly suspected you were wrong, and so I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU WHETHER MERION WAS MENTIONED IN THE DEED: 

I do have some questions regarding the records.  For example, who exactly bought the property in 1909?    I’ve read that it was a small group of members or maybe even a single member (Lloyd?) who made the purchase.  Was it Merion itself that bought the property in 1909, or the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, or an individual, or a group of individuals?  . . .

Rather than explaining that it was only HDC mentioned, and that you were just assuming 1) HDC was the same as Merion and 2) the property transfered was the golf course property, you instead continued to lie about it and even REFUSED TO LET ME REVIEW OR EVEN QUESTION THE DOCUMENT:  "You have some questions of us, do you Professor Moriarty? Do you suppose you might be able to find out some of this stuff for yourself?"

I've done plenty of research myself, and the more research I do the more suspect your research and statements become.    And I do have some questions for the two of you: 

Arent we in the exact same situation today?  You guys have the documents, are giving us only your version of what they mean, and you will not allow us to review or question the documents?         

By the way, you guys pulled then misread that deed to make the exact point you tried to make.   Only the document in no way supported the point.   HOW IS THAT NOT LYING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS?   

If I was Mike Cirba I'd be running around screaming "Fool Me Twice, Sayonara!"   Whatever that means.

[TEPaul]

Wayne and I did not lie about anything. I already told you that when this first became a subject on here we believed that the June 1909 indenture that included a title and trust company as the party of the first part, five people who were probably the "developers" as the party of the second part, and the Haverford Development Company (HDC) as the party of the third part, which we thought may've been Lloyd and his MCC investors beginning to buy into this land using HDC as their vehicle.

Still today we do not know who it was who first formed HDC or when. I believe we are going to get the incorporation papers from the state capital so we can see who formed HDC. One reason we thought it might have been Lloyd and his MCC investors is because we noticed on the 1908 Franklin real estate map listed the Johnson farm as owned by the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company. We couldn't understand why perhaps the same developers would form another company for the land next to it. I never even saw that 1909 indenture until about a month ago and it's so hard to read because it's hand written.

We still don't really know when Lloyd may've taken control of HDC but we know he had taken control of most of it by the end of 1910 because it was transfered into his name simply so he could control land transitioning between the golf course land and the residential land if necessary which they thought it might be because at the end of 1910 there was no course definitely located.

So, we weren't lying about anything. We believed a few years ago Lloyd may've controlled HDC that early but we were probably wrong and I just said so. Much of the other documentation found in the last few weeks makes all of this much more clear.

What's important, though, is to discover what really happened and when with both the financial arrangements of the course land and residential land and also to discover who routed and designed the holes of Merion East. For a number or reasons we strongly believe it was Wilson and his committee in 1911 with some advice and suggestions from Macdonald and Whigam just as the Merion history and the Alan Wilson report has always said.

You should certainly always recall that through all these years of discussions and arguments with you and MacWood about the contention of the two of you that both Merion and us today were trying to minimize Macdonald's roll in the creation of Merion East, I have always stood behind the accuracy of Alan Wilson's report and it has never been refuted--not by you and not by anyone and I doubt it ever could be because I firmly believe it is historically accurate about the creation of Merion East and West.

You two and a few others seemed inclined to ignore or just dismiss Alan Wilson's report with your opinions such as it must have been incorrect somehow or exaggerated in some attempt on Alan Wilson's part and all the others on the committee to glorify what Hugh did to make him a legend or something at the expense of people like Macdonald and Whigam. I will remind you that Alan Wilson's report states that Hugh Wilson and committee DESIGNED Merion East with some advice and suggestions from those two good and kindly gentlemen, Macdonald and Whigam. It goes on to say that when he asked all the other four members of Hugh WIlson's committee they ALL told him 'that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of Merion East and West.

I never had any reason to doubt Alan Wilson's words in that report, I have no reason to doubt them now, and it is looking much more like I never will have any reason to doubt them.

[TEPaul]

"Arent we in the exact same situation today?  You guys have the documents, are giving us only your version of what they mean, and you will not allow us to review or question the documents?"


In the exact same situation today as what?

You should understand that this entire issue of trying to apparently prove that Macdonald/Whigam had much more to do with Merion East's creation and its architecture than Merion or us have ever given them credit for is not our issue, it's only yours and Tom MacWood's, as far as I've ever been able to tell.

So, of course we're giving you our version. As we understand it we don't agree at all with your version and we really have no idea what somebody else's version is.

This has been going on for over five years now. It was never our issue because for all these years now we've stood behind the source material from some men who were there---The Wilson brothers--from which most of Merion's architectural history came.

When you have questioned and challenged Merion's historical record we've only tried to answer your questions and challenges and we've done a considerable amount of searching and researching to do that. Wayne has done a ton of legwork in this way, and he did it to answer your contentions and I guess he shared information with you, I really don't know much about that. I sure do know you have never shared a scintilla of anything with me, as you've made it clear you don't want to communicate with me other than right here where your insults seem to be increasing by the day.

This was never our issue, and we have never believed in your premises and conclusion with it. Nor did we believe in MacWood's, at least as we understand them to be.

But you certainly have motivated us to search for more detail and documents and that's been done, and, I, for one, am more convinced than ever it will show even more clearly who created Merion East and what Macdonald and Whigam's part was in it.

Merion would like to see that too and so we will try to do it for them. If after all that you still don't trust us or Merion or its historical record I think you will be able to come here yourself and with the established procedure for access to their archives you can see and decide for yourself. I think anyone truly interested in Merion's history can if they're willing to follow what their procedures are.

I don't see how or why anyone would want to ask for more than that.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne and I did not lie about anything.

Of course you did.   You claimed that the deed conclusively established that that Merion purchase the property in June in 1909.    This was a lie.  There is no way that any reasonable person could honestly claim that the deed conclusively established that Merion purchased the property on this date. 
   
Not only that, but you concealed your lie by refusing to answer my questions about the transaction or to allow me to review the document.   SAME AS YOU ARE DOING NOW.   REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCES AND CONCEALING THE SOURCES FROM REVIEW. 

If you want to pretend it was not a lie, that is up to you.  But lie or not, your statement had absolutely NO BASIS IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD, YOU KNEW IT, SO YOU HID THE HISTORICAL RECORD.

You claim that the deed conclusively proved that MERION PURCHASED the GOLF COURSE property in 1909. 

1.  MERION was not at all involved in the transaction.
2.  The transaction did not at all involve the GOLF COURSE PROPERTY.
3.  The deed does not even document a PURCHASE for value but a CONVEYANCE for nominal consideration of one dollar.

In other words, EVERY PART OF YOUR REPRESENTATION WAS ENTIRELY FALSE.

Your explanations, and post hoc rationalizations do not alter this or even address it.  YOU WOULDN'T EXPLAIN OR ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AT THE TIME YOU MADE THEM, SO YOU OUGHT NOT TO HIDE BEHIND YOUR EXPLANATIONS NOW. 

It doesn't matter who you guys guessed might have been involved, or what land you guys guessed might have been sold, or what you guys didn't even bother to check up on your guesses before your reached your conclusions, because:
       1.  YOUR ASSUMPTIONS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENT
       2.  YOU GUYS REFUSED TO EVEN TELL US THAT YOU WERE JUST GUESSING.
       3.  YOU GUYS REFUSED TO LET US REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS OR TO LET US REVIEW OR EVEN QUESTION THE DOCUMENTS.

As historic research goes, it does not get much more pathetic than this.   

. . . the Haverford Development Company (HDC) as the party of the third part, which we thought may've been Lloyd and his MCC investors beginning to buy into this land using HDC as their vehicle.

THIS is your justification for claiming that the deed conclusively proved Merion bought the property?   I stand corrected.  It does get more pathetic.

Still today we do not know who it was who first formed HDC or when.

This too is is absolutely pathetic.  You had no basis for concluding as you did without first figuring it out.   And there are many ways to figure it out, and all readily available to you.    Here, let me help you.  Again.

Haverford Development Company was incorporated on June 14, 1909.  $100,000 par value.

Subscribers:
J. E. Tatnall (68 shares)
J. R. Connell (66 shares)
E. W. Nicholson (66 shares)

Board Members

J. Boyd
L. J. Kolb
J. R. Connell
E. W. Nicholson
A. M Butler
T. R. Patton

What else would you like to know about Haverford Development Company? 

On December 1, 1910  they were planning to  increase their capital stock from $100,000 to $300,000.   Surely even you can figure out why.

By March 15, 1910 they had increased their capital stock to about $243,000. 

[DMoriarty]

Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Company incorporated in on or about February 18, 1907, 

Subscribers  were George and Joseph Connell and John Dick.  I believe George eventually became Mayor, and Joseph was the developer responsible for Oakmont and other Philadelphia suburbs. 

My point is that this research is not rocket science.   It takes less time than you spend typing one post.   Yet you guys just guess at things instead of looking them up.   Pathetic.

[TEPaul]

I really don't think it's all that appropriate, at this point, to criticize our research ability or our methods and the lines of analyses we use to determine facts since it's not our conclusion of the true architectural creation story of the great Merion East that's falling apart like a house of cards, it's yours!

Just look at that post #207, it's absolutely indescribable. It's too bad you had to look in all those Crackerjack boxes and you never found the prize. Right along in these last five years we've always told you and MacWood you never would prove that Macdonald/Whigam weren't given the credit they deserved for what they did at Merion over a grand total of less than three days at Ardmore and about a day and a half at NGLA but neither of you were willing to listen! It seems like you never are willing to listen and I guess you two never will.

The point is the premises and the conclusion of your theoretical and highly revisionist essay on Merion East is wrong. There was no routing by Macdonald, not in 1910, not ever. Just as Merion's history has always explained Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed and built the course and Macdonald and Whigam advised and made suggestions just like Alan Wilson's report, which we've always stood behind, said.

What are you going to tell us next, that we got lucky? I don't think so. You should have just come to us first years ago instead of trying to challenge this whole thing as you two did.

This should be a lesson to you. It should be a lesson to everyone.

Maybe, next time you two will do it different and do it better. Just come to us first if the subject is here instead of starting out on these agenda-driven campaigns to make names for yourselves with arrogance and insults of us and our town and our courses and clubs and architects.

[TEPaul]

David:

I just read that post #207 again. It's pretty scary. I know you think I'm some really mean-spirited man but believe me I'm not. Take a rest from this. It's important but it's not so important compared to what it seems to be doing to you in the last few days. We know these people, they're our friends and I know you and maybe MacWood think that makes what we're going to do not objective but believe me it will be. Merion wants to clean up any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in it architectural record and so do we. I'm not sure yet but I suspect the 1910 seven months trip abroad with all those plans and drawings might be the first casualty but there is no way that will change the architectural record from that time in 1910 and 1911 and as reflected by the Alan Wilson report. The minutes prove it all.

When we're done we'll send the whole thing to you for your review. You deserve that for all your effort. Take a break, start a new thread. You know what I told you---I think you should start working on Macdonald-----the rest of the man in golf, not just his architecture. I guarantee you there's a lot there. If you don't do it maybe I will someday because it's really important not just to golf architecture but probably to a real crossroads in golf way back there behind us.

Get some rest. You need it and so do we all.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  I've reread my posts above and they are entirely accurate.  Plus they exactly portray your overall approach to researching and analyzing these issues.

You asked me for specific examples of things you guys have gotten wrong, because you want to set the record straight and explore "why" you got things wrong.   This is just the first of a long, long list. 

Right along in these last five years we've always told you and MacWood you never would prove that Macdonald/Whigam weren't given the credit they deserved for what they did at Merion over a grand total of less than three days at Ardmore and about a day and a half at NGLA but neither of you were willing to listen! It seems like you never are willing to listen and I guess you two never will.

This is telling.   Think of all of the new information that has come out in the past five years, or in the past five or six weeks, for that matter.  Yet to you nothing has changed.   In your mind you've always known exactly about everything, and facts-be-damned.   

[DMoriarty]

Oh, c'mon, Dave..there's a big difference between (a) Tom and Wayne finding a deed, convincing themselves (wrongly) what it means and telling everybody what they (mistakenly) believe it means ..and maybe even being a little closed-minded andor insular about it, to boot.....and (b) being outright liars about it.

I don't believe the latter one bit.   If a kid tells you Santa Claus is real because the kid saw him at the shopping mall, is the kid a liar?

Shivas,

The term "liar" is a strong term, and I probably should have used a different one, but, you know me, I call them as I see them.   At least the kid in the mall has seen something that remotely resembles Santa.  There was nothing in this deed that remotely resembled a purchase by Merion.

But the deception that troubles me wasn't that they "convincing themselves (wrongly) what it means . . .."  They were only deceiving themselves at that point.

The offensive deception was . . .
1.  . . . claiming that source material CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED that Merion purchased the property in 1909.
2.  . . . refusing to answer any questions about the source material or allow anyone to review it. 

And that is exactly what they are doing again:   
1.  They have access to source material.
2.  They have made all sorts of claims about what the source material means and conclusively establishes.
3.  They have refused to answer questions about the source material or allow any review at all.

You remember.  Wayne popped in, dropped the CBM letter, and claimed that most the questions had been answered, and that no more information would be forthcoming.    And everyday since, TEPaul has been claiming, without support, what the source material  establishes. 

This is a deceptive and dishonest way to deal with the source material.   

 

[DMoriarty]

I recall Wayne stating that the letter answered most of the pending questions. I also recall his cohort, TEPaul, going from thread to thread announcing that all questions had been answered and that my essay was completely refuted by the letter.  It of course does no such thing.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Let me ask you something:

In that last few days a few of us and certainly me have been called liars on here constantly. This guy's stated reason for doing that is; "I just call them as I see them."  That's interesting indeed and is probably the reason so many of us just don't agree with much of anything he sees and says.

Isn't it true that most of what all of us talk about on here day in and day out are our opinions?

If so, how should we state them so that we aren't called liars by this guy on here? Should we say: "In my opinion" or "In my opinion, I conclude...?"

If we worded what we say that way would you say this guy has any right or reason at all to call any of us liars?

I've noticed that if he feels the need to rationalize away a man's words such as Alan Wilson's because it's clear they don't support some premise or conclusion he's dreaming up he just assumes they were eulogizing or engaging in hyperbole or just lying.

What kind of logic is that? Pretty dumb, I'd say. And with me these days he just automatically assumes that everything I saw on here is designed to deceive or lie for some reason including my opinions. Thank God everyone doesn't believe that.

We've told him that to quote this source material we are looking at that has not been disseminated we need permission from the clubs. But he just keeps ignoring that fact.

Maybe we should never have mentioned our opinions on here about what it means. Maybe we should've just written a report quoting it and stating our opinions of what it means before saying anything at all on here about it.

Our opinions are our opinions and we take them seriously and we want to be objective about them. We don't have anything to hide although every day this guy says we do. We just don't. But I hope the actual quotations we are looking at and forming our opinions from will get out there someday soon but that's not our call. Even if the words within these quotes are very clear to us as to what they say and mean, I have no doubt at all that this guy and a few others on here will put every single one of them through some Clintonian "It depends what the meaning of is, is." 

I don't believe we are interested in getting involved in that type of thing and I know Merion G.C. isn't. I just hope that a guy like that won't continue to say that our opinions and Merion's opinions are just a deceptive pack of lies because they don't agree with his far-fetched theories and conclusions. Because if he just continues to do that it's not just disrespectful to a great club, it's frankly absurd, don't you think?

[DMoriarty]

Okay Shivas, if even you think the term "liar" is too strong, then I'll quit using it on here.   But as I said above, pointing out the "lying" was giving them the benefit of the doubt. 

But from here on, I will assume that they were not lying when Tom repeatedly wrote that the 1909 deed conclusively proved that Merion purchased the land in 1909, and Wayne never bothered to correct him. 

1.  That means that they actually believed that the deed conclusively proved that Merion purchased the land in 1909!  Even though Merion was not mentioned and they were just blindly guessing as to the parties, the land, and the nature of the transaction!

2.  They must also believe that there is nothing wrong with presenting their beliefs as unassailable facts, even though their beliefs are based on nothing but blind guesses as to the parties, the land, and the nature of the conveyance.

3.  They must also believe that there is nothing wrong with refusing to answer questions about the basis for the beliefs, and to refuse to allow any sort of critical review of their beliefs (which were based on nothing but blind guesses.) 

4.  They must believe that there is nothing wrong with demanding that others accept their beliefs as true, and will ridicule those who do not accept their blind guesses as facts! 

Shivas, have you read TEPaul's comments about what he now calls his "opinion?"   He isn't offering an opinion or an interpretation, he is claiming it as absolute fact, and demanding that the rest of us, especially me, acknowledge the fact and adjust our analysis accordingly.

By the way, Wayne went to the county Court House and to the Recorder of Deeds and discovered that Merion Cricket Club bought the land on Ardmore Ave that was to become Merion East not towards the end of 1910 (approximately the time Macdonald is said to have first visited the site) but in June of 1909.

That would appear to throw everything back over a year. Maybe Wilson went to see Macdonald as early as 1909. And it would certainly appear if the end of 1910 was the first time Macdonald came to Philadelphia to look at the site which has been reported on here a few times that he certainly didn't have any oversight as to whether the site was acceptable for a golf course.

Furthermore, if Wilson had gone to see Macdonald at NGLA a lot early (perhaps in 1909) he most certainly would've had plenty of time to go to GB before beginning to build the golf course in the spring and summer of 1911.
. . .

David Moriarty:

And isn't it interesting that you did not even acknowledge that now we have established that the land in Ardmore which was to become Merion East was bought in June of 1909 instead of in 1910 as we all have assumed it was. Some on here, perhaps yourself, have suggested that Macdonald may've come here to Philadelphia to approve the site for a golf course. Can we now establish Macdonald came here for that purpose in 1909 rather than in the end of 1910?

It would seem that could push this entire scenario of Merion East back to a year before.  But yet you don't even acknowledge that discovery. I wonder why?
. . .
Last night I posted that Wayne went to the Recorder of Deeds at Merion's county courthouse and discovered the property was bought by Merion over a year earlier than anyone heretofore knew. Can you imagine what that may mean about when Wilson may've visited NGLA?

David Moriarty read that post and just avoided that subject altogether!! What does that tell you about where he's coming from on these threads??

And how do we even know that if Wilson went to NGLA in 1909 or 1910 he didn't go to GB right after that in 1909 or 1910? Has David Moriarty proven that Wilson didn't go to GB before the course's 1911 beginning just because he's said on here he thinks this Ancestry.com or his research of it is infallible??

And Shivas, did you see his response when I specifically questioned him about the deed to try and determine the parties, the land, and the nature of the transaction:  "You have some questions of us, do you Professor Moriarty? Do you suppose you might be able to find out some of this stuff for yourself?   "

Since my term is out, we need a new way to describe this.   
--Certainly it is not an approach that has much chance of getting at the facts, is it?   
--Surely it is not a reasonable manner in which to conduct research or analysis, or a reasonable method of presenting your results?
--Surely there is something unsavory about their abuse of the source material and our good faith? 


So how do we describe it, if not the way I did?   Gross incompetence?   A total lack of objectivity?  An arrogant and patronizing abuse of the source material and our good will?    A complete inability to understand the difference between a weak and unsupported inference and fact?  All of the above?   Which is it?

Seriously Shivas, since you don't like my description, I need some help understanding and describing what went on with the documents.   Because the exact same type of abuse is happening now, and I want to make sure I describe it properly.
_______________________

We don't have anything to hide although every day this guy says we do. We just don't. But I hope the actual quotations we are looking at and forming our opinions from will get out there someday soon but that's not our call.

Don't have anything to hide?   They why are you hiding the source material?   Wayne has 1) directly quoted CBM's letter, 2) shared the rest of the information with a wide group of people.    It seems the only people who are not being allowed to look at the information are those that might not agree with your predetermined interpretation of it. 

How could there be a more clear example of hiding something?  You are hiding the source material because you are afraid how I might interpret it!   This is exactly what you did when you refused to answer any questions about the 1909 deed!  EXACTLY.

An don't try to hide behind the club rules.   Wayne has already quoted the material directly, can apparently give the information to whoever he chooses, and you can apparently disseminate whatever you want so long as you don't quote it.     

As I have explain before, I have every respect for Merion.  I am talking about you and Wayne, not Merion.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Interesting points you make about corporations seeking outside advice and such. I know what you're saying in a very broad analogy, and of course many corporations, particularly public ones, do that for obvious reasons but one should remember public corporations are in a very different postion than private clubs for a whole lot of reasons. As far as being too close to a club or a subject to be objective I don't buy that, not in this case anyway. Revisionism is just revisionism and reasonble minds tend to pick up on it fairly easily.

[Dan Herrmann]

David - it's time to take a break - a cooling off period.   You're gaining nothing and you're now looking unprofessional.  Very unprofessional.  Remember - anybody can read your posts - potential employers, clients, customers, etc...    Do you really want those folks reading this stuff?

This is historical research, not an adversial courtroom.  

Please  -  do yourself a favor and cool it for a few weeks.

Peace.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think I understand some of your upset and frustration and I think everyone would have done some things a little differently in retrospect, and I know you feel a bit handicapped because you're not privy yet to the meeting minutes that Wayne is.

However, I do think we need to be careful and accurate here.   You claim that Wayne has "shared the information (from the MCC minutes) with a wide group of people."

This is simply not true.   Other than what's been posted here, I know and communicate with both Wayne and Tom pretty regularly and I can tell you that all I've seen or heard of those minutes is the same that you have...right here on GCA, or the general synopsis in a private email that Tom Paul sent to a number of us, including you.

I believe that it's unfair of you to imply that he's sharing this information widely or at all.   The only thing he shared with me is the Sayers Scrapbook, but I thought you'd already seen that as a number of items in your IMO piece were from that document.   

Trying to be fair to everyone, and because you complained t him, he's since taken away my access to those online documents, and I do understand that he's trying to do the right thing and do this in the proper way.   I also know that he's told you this personally, so I do want you to know that I know nothing more than you at this point.

I'm hoping they get the proper permissions soon and are able to share with all of us.


EDIT - Oops...just got done typing this and then saw Wayne's "Final Straw" thread.   

[DMoriarty]

Dan, I appreciate your advice, and you may be right.   In the past I have tried to finesse this issue and perhaps I should have kept doing it, but when TEPaul asked me to explain exactly where they have mislead people, and stated he wanted to explain "why," I answered honestly and frankly, giving but one of many possible examples.   

The problem is not so much in their inability to substantively understand the deed.   While their substantive conclusion is entirely unsupportable by any reasonable reading of the record, the real deception was in the procedure.

1.  They were unsure of the meaning of the document on many different levels, but they nonetheless drastically overstated its significance. 
2.  They did not bother to check their assumptions even though doing so would have been relatively simple. 
3.  They refused to produce their source material.
4.  They refused to answer questions or even explain their source material. 
5.  And they unfairly wielded their faulty conclusion as if it were infallible.

All these are entirely unacceptable in by any standard. 

Am I wrong about this?  I don't think so, but I'd like to hear where, if I am.   

I am sorry if this makes you and others uncomfortable.  It makes me uncomfortable as well.  But it is the truth and I am not very good at evading or avoiding the truth, even if it uncomfortable.   
___________________________

However, I do think we need to be careful and accurate here.   You claim that Wayne has "shared the information (from the MCC minutes) with a wide group of people."

He has shared the CBM document with the entire world-wide-web, and TEPaul has shared much more of the source information with the entire world wide web.  And they both have used this information rhetorically, first to try and cut the conversation short, and since that did not work TEPaul has been waxing philosophically about the documents every day.  TEPaul is now even inviting certain posters to contact him via IM so he can share even more information with certain select people who have nothing to do with the group supposedly writing the IMO (or whatever it is now.) 

How much must they use the source material before they start backing up their conclusions?  I think they passed that point when they first posted the CBM letter.  But even if that letter was a mistake and an oversite, TEPaul has gone well beyond this.   

THEY CHOSE TO COME ON HERE AND MAKE CLAIMS, AND SO THEY OUGHT TO BE PREPARED TO BACK THEM UP.

Honestly Mike.  If I had come on here and set out my conclusions, but then refused to share or answer questions about any of my source material, and instead just vaguely alluded to it, how would you have reacted?   

One of the first things Wayne did after my essay came out was to request to see my sources, because critical peer review demanded it.   I immediately obliged, because he was correct.   Yet they have used the records rhetorically, but have refused to allow the information to be challenged.   

I believe that it's unfair of you to imply that he's sharing this information widely or at all.   The only thing he shared with me is the Sayers Scrapbook, but I thought you'd already seen that as a number of items in your IMO piece were from that document. 

Trying to be fair to everyone, and because you complained t him, he's since taken away my access to those online documents, and I do understand that he's trying to do the right thing and do this in the proper way.   I also know that he's told you this personally, so I do want you to know that I know nothing more than you at this point.

I complained to him?   No.   He called me on my cell phone, apparently to complain to me, call me a liar,  and tell me my essay was poorly written and that 90% of it was wrong.  While doing so told me that he had given you access to his Sayres information.   Weeks ago he had indicated that I would be given access to his copies, and I reminded him of this.   [Remember, I had already given him my copies.]   Not sure why he cut you off from access to the documents.  It was not at my request.    Maybe it makes him feel better about failing to keep his word to me. 

I also indicated to Wayne that I would lay off about their misuse of the documents if they would acknowledge that it was a mistake to have done so, and if he would stop allowing this supposedly confidential source material to be used rhetorically until such a time when he was willing and able to submit his source material to the same scrutiny mine faced.

This is not an unreasonable request, it is the minimal requirement for proper research and analysis.

But Wayne and TEPaul are currently unwilling to abide even the most basic standards of peer review.  If so, then he is finally doing the right thing.   Until he is ready to submit the essay and source material to proper peer review, their conclusions and their "IMO" should never see the light of day.

[TEPaul]

From David Moriarty
the author of the IMO essay "The Missing Faces of Merion"

“I also indicated to Wayne that I would lay off about their misuse of the documents if they would acknowledge that it was a mistake to have done so, and if he would stop allowing this supposedly confidential source material to be used rhetorically until such a time when he was willing and able to submit his source material to the same scrutiny mine faced.

This is not an unreasonable request, it is the minimal requirement for proper research and analysis.

But Wayne and TEPaul are currently unwilling to abide even the most basic standards of peer review.  If so, then he is finally doing the right thing.   Until he is ready to submit the essay and source material to proper peer review, their conclusions and their "IMO" should never see the light of day.”




I’ll definitely acknowledge it was a mistake on my part to have even alluded to any information from these private clubs and referred to it rhetorically or philosophically or in any other way on this website. What has happened on this website now is something a month or more ago I did not foresee and frankly would never have imagined. But what was unimaginable to me then has happened.

In the past on this website I suppose we all enjoyed some kind of trust and some kind of respect for one another and for the entities and their material (that was not in the public domain) we were using and discussing. I suppose I never understood or appreciated what a fine line it really was we were all plying on here. When we did that in the past I never thought much about some of these issues that some have raised on here recently over this Merion issue such as these demands that if anyone has access to private club information and material then everyone should have it or this idea mentioned above of some kind of requirement for peer review which is being demanded on here. I’m certainly not a young guy and always in the back of my mind was this concern that the modern world of the Internet was a very different deal than anything I’ve been used to in my life. I knew there was an upside to it and a downside. I believe the upside on this website in the last nine years on here has been just wonderful, very educational and fulfilling. The downside has caught me by surprise in the last month or so and I need to reflect on it.





Shivas said:
“Private corporations do it too.  Corporate law makes few distinctions between public and private companies - the blind scales of justice and all that....”

Shivas, I’m no lawyer and I really don’t know whether the distinctions in the law between what I believe are public entities and private entities are small or great. What I do know is information I’ve collected over the years was probably done through my own relationships with the clubs and members from them I’ve come to know over my life. I don’t know the law very well as far as things like public disclosure or public peer review is concerned but I do know my friends and my relationships with them and I’d just as soon keep them good and healthy. That’s what I understand and value and the downside of the Internet as of the last month or so on this website has made me more aware of those relationships than ever before.

My good old mother (now gone) had some wonderful advice from time to time. I once asked her what she thought good manners were, and it didn’t take her long to shoot back at me that she thought they were basically not much more than good old fashioned commonsense. I will be reflecting on that  today too.

And last, I don’t know who Erica Blasberg is but if a thread on here discussing her says she’s definitely the hottest little item on the LPGA Tour then I’ll turn on the TV and check out the little chicklet. But if that kind of subject is what this architecture website has devolved down to, I don’t think it needs my opinions anymore, whether they are rhetorical, philosophical or otherwise.   

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Your comment, "And last, I don’t know who Erica Blasberg is but if a thread on here discussing her says she’s definitely the hottest little item on the LPGA Tour then I’ll turn on the TV and check out the little chicklet. But if that kind of subject is what this architecture website has devolved down to, I don’t think it needs my opinions anymore, whether they are rhetorical, philosophical or otherwise..." just might be the single most dangerous one you have ever posted in 300,000,000 or so postings you have made.

Do you realize just how many "Check this LPGA Chicky out" topics we will now see just in an effort to get you to stop sharing your opinions?

It almost sounds as if a gauntlet has been thrown down... 

 

[TEPaul]

"Do you realize just how many "Check this LPGA Chicky out" topics we will now see just in an effort to get you to stop sharing your opinions?
It almost sounds as if a gauntlet has been thrown down... 




Well, Phil, you tell 'em for me they won't need to throw any gauntlet down. I'm not going to be sharing on here any of my opinions on any clubs and courses I know and have information on. I've got respect for Wayne Morrison and his position as a member of Merion. Apparently some just don't understand that or appreciate it enough to treat him and the things he's tried to do both on here and otherwise with the kind of respect I think he deserves.

We've talked about it and the site saw his decision last night. I'm cool with that. Neither one of us and including others on here want to deal with this website with some of our information if it's going to be run in some manner that is the world of access and peer review or whatever according to David Moriarty.

If he goes, we may reconsider at some point, but not until.

How hot is this little chicklet, Erica Blasberg? Perhaps more importantly, do you think there is any possibility in my future that the LPGA Tour would consider at least one LPGA Tour Championship where the "Conditions of Competition" require the field to play topless?

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I’ve just given the matter of this Erica Blasberg some more serious thought. I probably should make this its own independent thread but for now I’ll leave it on a post on here.

You know, a year or so ago Wayne Morrison had about three of those young LPGA players over to Merion. They all played the East course and from the tips. I’ve been a true student of this distance increase issue for a lot of years now and it was really surprising to me what those young gals can do, and one of them was just a little slip of a thing.

Wayne is not short off the tee by any stretch and all of these three young gals were right with him and most of the time they were carrying the ball past him. We’re talking 270-275 here---truly.

I’ve always been a broken down old liberal from New York all my life so equality in all things and in all ways (with the sole exception now of allowing David Moriaty equal access to anything) including even a little slip of an LPGA gal carrying the ball past an animal like Wayne Morrison is OK with me---I like to see it actually.

I’ve never really tried to psychoanalyze Wayne (although one time I did offer to pay for three visits for him to see Dr Katz) but he was definitely NOT OK with this. It probably impacted some psychological or maturation glitch during his breast feeding stage or something and by the back nine he’d developed this involuntary twitch all up and down his right side. It got really bad near the end of the round as these young gals continued to bomb it by him.

He couldn’t even hold a drink after the round---spilled the thing all over his trouser crotch. So we all took him upstairs to the locker-room and laid him down on his side under one of those enormous Merion showerheads and after about 20 minutes under a really hot shower, he was OK again.

(Just as an aside, I have no idea how the usually impeccable decorum at Merion allowed for those three little LPGA hotties to be up there in the Men’s shower-room with him but I don’t make policy at that club either).

Anyway, here’s what I’ve been giving some real thought to:

I figure the LPGA Tour probably needs a bit of a public-relations shot-in-the-arm about now. I mean Anika is retiring this year, and although Lorena Ochoa is really great she will never be more than lukewarm in the looks and “hot” department.

So, here’s my idea, and I think I should be hired as an LPGA consultant on it. Seeing as how these young gals can really generate some amazing clubhead speed generated somehow by extreme arm-speed via their hot little “quicksnap” bodies and really give the ball a ride, I think if the LPGA could encourage this Erica Blasberg to play a couple of LPGA Tour Championships topless, that it’s more than possible that she could momentarily set her left tit on fire on at least one or two swings, and when the world of golf sees that it will be so powerful it will set the LPGA on a whole new level for at least five years.

What do you think, Phil? I’m some kinda public relations genius, don’t you think? Is that Erica Blasberg idea of mine a “cut and wrap” or what?

(I hope this post is not so OT to this thread's subject that it will need to be deleted)

[DMoriarty]

In the past on this website I suppose we all enjoyed some kind of trust and some kind of respect for one another  . . .

Trust and respect?  Was Tom MacWood treated with trust and respect by you or Wayne?  Have I been so treated?  Do you really believe that you have treated those with whom you disagree with trust and respect?     Apparently, like peer review, you think this too is a one-way street. 

. . . and for the entities and their material (that was not in the public domain) we were using and discussing.

 
This has nothing to do with the Clubs.  But you seem to be suggesting that Wayne's relationship and your relationship (whatever it is) with Merion entitles the two of you to some higher degree of trust and respect.   You and I must come from very different places.   For me, trust and respect are not things you are born into or things you pay for with your monthly dues.  They must be earned and maintained.   

I suppose I never understood or appreciated what a fine line it really was we were all plying on here. When we did that in the past I never thought much about some of these issues that some have raised on here recently over this Merion issue such as these demands that if anyone has access to private club information and material then everyone should have it or this idea mentioned above of some kind of requirement for peer review which is being demanded on here.

 No one has demanded anything from the Clubs.  All I have asked is that, if you present the material on here to try and prove a point (which you have repeatedly,) that you be willing and able to back up your point with the source material.