News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2008, 04:32:34 PM »
Nice to see some humor bandied about

Wilson would not have gone to charlie fore advice on steak;HAM eas macdonald's specialty.

Mike, was that ham of any particular political persuasion?

"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Thomas MacWood

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2008, 05:00:48 PM »
"TE
Speaking of A&C, you may be interested in the article 'Wilson Eyre and Arts & Crafts of Philadelphia' from the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians,"


Tom:

That's true, and I've read all about Wilson Eyre and I went over to visit the vestiges of Allgates the other day. Philadelphia had, and still has, some very strong "arts and crafts" influences particularly centered around an area called Rose Valley.

I even told you once that I grew up in a house in Isleborough Maine built around the turn of the century by my grandfather or great grandfather that's one of the best examples of an "English Cottage/AC" style but as usual you just made some dumb joke about that obviously always trying to make the point that no one even if they grew up with stuff like that could possibly understand it as well as some "expert researcher" who read some books about it such as yourself! Really silly, really silly!   ;) Once? Yes, I do remember the twenty plus times you told us as proof of your A&C expertise. If you recall I referred to it twenty plus times as the Holiday Inn Express Affect.

By the way, Tom, do you have any idea who Horatio Gates Lloyd was? How about Clement Griscom or Rodman or Lloyd Griscom or Frederick Baily or T. DeWitt Cuyler? Weren't they members of a boy band opperating out of Atlantic City? You're the guy who likes all that background research on people involved in these clubs and their architecture, right? Did you know that Frederick Baily's father, Joshua Baily, met John Rushkin AND William Morris in the 19th century at an Arts and Crafts party in the country outside London where Gertrude Jekyll came dressed in only a very skimpy and very sexy rhododendren bush and that Joshua Baily apparently talked to all three of them for over 17 minutes? With that, is there any question that virtually proves Merion East should be labeled "Arts and Crafts" style architecture? Was Joshua Bailey blind? ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2008, 08:54:35 PM »
Nice to see some humor bandied about

Wilson would not have gone to charlie fore advice on steak;HAM eas macdonald's specialty.

My God...I have to stop posting from my Blackberrry!    :o :-[ ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2008, 09:03:25 PM »
But seriously, ladies and gentlemen...  ;D

Take my sketch of Sunningdale, please!    ;D

And Whigham....get a hold of yourself, man...PLEASE, and do remove your tongue from my boot!    ;D

Ahhh...that Charley...he really brought a sense of humor to architecture, don't you think?   I mean, how else to explain that routing of Shinnecock Hills and Chicago Golf?  ;)  ;D

Of course, he can always claim that it was all Raynor's fault.   I mean, did the guy ever see a right angle that the didn't love?   He was about as natural looking as Pamela Anderson crossed with Joan Rivers!  ;)  ;D

We'll be here every Monday night in the month of June folks...tell your friends, and remember...

if you haven't travelled abroad before 1912, you ain't done Jack!  ;D

Thank you all!!  Good Night!!!   ;D
 

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2008, 09:06:22 PM »
"Nice to see some humor bandied about"

MikeC;

Yes it is, isn't it. But since it's apparent those two fellows are incapable of answering questions or having a discussion, interspersed now and again with their Philly Syndrome and stonewall accusations, I guess to have them now just make a joke out of everything is a welcome change, in a manner of speaking.  ;) But don't get me wrong, I love humor.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2008, 09:20:07 PM »
Tom,

For some real humor, consider the contention that most historians have interpreted the value of the Merion committee's trip to NGLA as simply getting insight on which courses to visit in Europe?!  ::)

I mean, who the hell ever said that?   Did the Wilson's?   No.   Some later might have paraphrased some type of wording that blended the NGLA and Europe trips to summarily indicate quite correctly that it was part of the continuous effort to learn about great courses, but it would be preposterous to think that any of these men would have believed that to be the primary purpose of the visit when Hugh Wilson himself tells us very explicity exactly why they went to NGLA, and what they did.   

I mean, it's preposterous and laughable on the face of it.    If all the Merion Committee was hoping to find was a travel itinerary, couldn't they have simply sent a letter asking for Charley to recommend some courses to them?    ::)    Why the need to travel there and stay overnight?    ::)

This type of oversimplification and clever abstraction of later interpretations might be useful for making a political point, or in trying to elevate an agenda that quickly lost most of its factual foundations as new evidence was introduced, but it's actually humorous only in the sense of straining credulity so as to be almost bizarrely farcical.   

Still and all, I think we need to end the personalization of all this stuff, and that's why looking at it as a absurdist puzzle perpetuated by a Dali or Muirhead might be the best, and most mentally healthy alternative for those of us who actually care about what those facts mean. 

From my perspective, I'm very glad Tom MacWood is back here, and David Moriarty as well, much as I think he's dreadfully wrong.   

   
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 11:17:34 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2008, 09:30:25 PM »
"Why the need to travel there and stay overnight?     :o"


Mike:

To be honest this "overnight" thing at NGLA is really beginning to concern me! I mean what if Devie was there too?? I've done a ton of research on those guys but I just don't have an answer for everything. This might create a real problem and Wayne and I might have to pull in some of our best "spin control" consultants from NYC or DC on this one. Do you think there's any possiblility Devie might've had a "Bi-Rooster" house next to Charlie's "Hen" House?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 09:32:18 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2008, 09:34:22 PM »
Tom,

Let's not forget that this was not long after the "Gay 90's".   ;D

Not only was Emmett likely there, but I'm sure Whigham was as well.

I can only hope that the Philadelphia men were able to keep the conversation focused on architecture, on NGLA, and on those British courses, but if France and the "Bents of Le Touquet" entered the conversation after the wine started flowing, who knows where the hell things went after that!?!  :o ::)

After all, it was going to be a very long, long, long trip overseas, which David contends most historians believe was the purpose of the visit in the first place.   It gets mighty lonely on the big ships.    ;)


James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2008, 10:54:19 PM »
I'm really behind on all the Merion discovery...I'm stilll trying to figure why Wilson and his familly went to Argentina. Isn't Argentina known for its meat?  Was Wilson involved in exporting meat by chance? Perhaps that is why he headed the committee, he was giving the others free steak. Is it possible that the real reason Macdonald & Whigham were assisting at Merion was for the prime rib Wilson was bringing back with him. I understand Macdonald had quite an appetite.

Is it true that Wilson invented the cheesesteak sandwich, a Philly icon, using imported Argentinian beef?

This story would be extremely damaging IMO if it saw the light of day, and should be descredited immediately.

Man, you are behind. 

When the committee appointed Wilson in 1907, they told him to travel overseas and learn how to "stake out Merion."  Unfortunately, he thought they meant "steak out Merion."   So he traveled to Argentina and came back with 100 head of prime Argentinean steers. 

Not wanting any more mistakes (misteaks?) Merion sent him up to Macdonald, so that Macdonald could explain exactly where he needed to go. 

As for the steers, they so overcrowded the cricket grounds that Merion had to buy the Ardmore property to give them room to graze.  Their by-product is the agronomy secret at Merion.


Is this how the Golden Arches franchise (MacDonalds) got started - an outlet to dispose of an oversupply of argentinian beef?  Of course that implies that there was real beef in a MacDonalds burger.  I will have to take advice from others more learned on that - I haven't had one for quite a while.

The Argentinian connection reminds me of that epic musical in recent years (was it the 70's?) - 'Don't buy your meat from Argentina'.  Andrew Lloyd Webber IIRC.  There was some sort of beef issue in the mid-70's anyway I think.

James B  ;D
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2008, 11:02:21 PM »
James,

I don't believe it's any coincidence that the supply of horses for polo matches around Philadelphia declined precipitously with the advent of the "Cheesesteak", right after Hugh Wilson's return from Argentina as Tom MacWood rightly notes.

Of course, all of this took some time before the advent of franchising, and the later equine dreams of guys like Ray Kroc who had the horse-sense to take the whole thing to a new, international level.   

On the other hand, their swift, off-handed dismissal of HJ Whigham's idea of marketing the "Puffburger", which suggested the blending of several french cheeses and pastries with the supposed succulent meat of the opossum was probably one of the wiser culinary decisions of the past century.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 11:23:58 PM by MikeCirba »

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #60 on: June 10, 2008, 01:45:35 AM »
Mike

supposed succulent meat of the opossum?  Well, I come from a state whose nickname is 'croweaters'.  The weather gets a bit hot and dry and dusty, hence the need (supposedly) to 'eat crow'.  The recipe gets handed down by your forebears.  Apparently, the secret to 'eating crow' is in the cooking.  Place one crow and a house brick in water.  Boil the hell out of the water until the house brick goes soft.  Empty the water, throw away the crow and eat the house brick!  I think I understand the other connotations of 'eating crow' given that recipe.

Regarding the decline of horses, did this co-incide with the return of any local butchers/business tycoons from France?  They have some lovely cuts of (horse) meat available, apparently.  Perhaps this from a tourist on a boat that went to Dover via Calais?

James B ;)
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2008, 01:57:26 AM »
David Moriarty:

I wonder if you understand or appreciate why I asked you why you mentioned Toulmin.

Did your grandfather get with Dr. Toulmin's daughter (aptly named Marion) at her Society Debut in the fall of 1911? 

Seriously, and pardon me for saying so, but I don't "understand or appreciate" why you guys keep playing "we know more than you do," with the facts.   I did not do that with my research.  I readily shared it with you.  Yet it seems like every time you guys figure something out one of you just cannot help but try to challenge me with that information.  Just a few examples:

-- When Wayne called me to tell me that my "essay is 90% false" he couldn't help but challenge me whether I even knew when the NGLA trip took place.   I told him I thought it was  March or early April of 1911, not long before CBM and HJW returned to Merion.

-- When Wayne claimed that he had information that "would shake up my timeline,"  I responded that my understanding was that while Merion may have taken possession of the property in January 1911, they did not take title until sometime in the summer.  I also explained my take on the complicated manner in which the transaction was set up, and the reasons for it. 

-- And you have repeatedly challenged my knowledge about a number of factual issues.  You even claimed that I had no idea about the Griscom's family business.  I had to remind you that  I covered it in my essay!

Tom, Aren't we supposed to be interested in figuring out the truth here?  If so, then why do you guys go out of your way to try to rub your facts in my face?    It is not polite and it does not add much to the conversation.   

How about this:  I admit that you guys have more information about Merion than I do.  You have the documents that I was not allowed to access at MCC, and I obviously do not.  If this makes you guys vastly superior researchers to me, then so be it. 

So why keep playing these games?   Why not quit hiding the facts?  Or at least quit using them for rhetorical purposes before you are ready to release them.

By the way,  I have a pretty good idea as to why you might have asked me about my Toulmin reference.  But do you really want me to tell you why you asked the question?  Or would you rather try to spring the information on me?   Or we could just stop playing these guessing games.  The choice is yours.

Quote
That's right, the story of Wilson going to see Macdonald perhaps in 1910 and then traveling abroad in 1910 and for perhaps seven months and then returning with drawings and sketches and surveyor's maps from abroad has been repeated by all those people you mentioned and perhaps others earlier---it's hard to say when that story first began or how it got into Merion's history.

You are constantly looking for proof of most anything I say and in this case I'm going to tell you I am not offering proof and I'm not trying to but I will give you my opinion on that story.

I think at some point, perhaps as much removed from the actual events in 1910 and 1911 as a half century, that story entered Merion's history. Of course one wonders why or how. My own feeling is someone, again removed from the actual events by as much as a number of decades, may've simply misinterpreted Alan Wilson's 1926 report on the creation of Merion when he wrote: "The land was FOUND in 1910 and as a first step Mr Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous courses in Scotand and England."

As anyone can see, Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910 and he never mentioned when Hugh Wilson (and his committee?) went to see Macdonald at NGLA either. Hugh Wilson did not mention any date for the visit to NGLA either but the board meeting minutes most certainly does narrow it down more than anything we've ever seen before. As to Why Alan Wilson said, "as a first step" is hard to say too but the fact that he was writing that report about fifteen years after the fact might have something to do with it.

So, my feeling is that report of Wilson's was misinterpreted along the way, again, perhaps removed from the actual event by up to half a century. The remainder of the story of seven months and plans and drawings is the remainder of the mystery of that story. Perhaps someone just misinterpreted the fact that Macdonald showed them his plans and drawings from abroad at NGLA. As for the seven months perhaps someone misconstrued the fact that he apparently went abroad in 1912 for up to SEVERAL months (It could not possibly have been more than two months).


With all due respect, I covered all of this in my essay.  I also offered a number of other possible sources of the confusion.  Why are you trying to explain to me what I have already explained in the essay?   

An honest question, Tom, did you even read the entire essay?  Because this keeps happening, where you tell me something in the essay, as if I did not know it.  I'd certainly understand why you might have gotten frustrated and just stopped reading.  Did you?

Quote
Simply for interest we could try to look for the beginning of that story as far back as we can find a mention of it anywhere, again it may've been 40-50 years after the fact, but the point is it does not make any difference at all as to what actually happened in 1910 and 1911 and who did what and when. The facts of that are contained in the MCC meeting minutes.

I have not been allowed to sees those MCC meeting minutes, but I disagree nonetheless.  The correct understanding of the NGLA visit makes a huge difference.  It changes the story of how Merion East was created, and who created it.   I should have been more explicit about this in the essay, because you and others seemed to have completely missed the significance.

Quote
When those are eventually made known I'm sure anyone could try to say those too are total exaggerations or lies or whatever but I guarantee that kind of deduction, assumption, premise or conclusion will not interest us here or Merion because the idea that men like that trying to build a golf course would exaggerate or lie to one another in the course of something like board meetings is frankly completely preposterous.

But I have little doubt the way this whole thing has gone on this website that someone probably will suggest such a preposterous thing at some point in the future, but again, neither we nor Merion will be paying any attention to it in the future.

I've noticed you keep saying that when Wayne finally produces his rebuttal essay and sources (if he does) that NO ONE at Merion or anywhere else should pay any attention to me, my comments and corrections.   In other words, you are again trying to engineer a premature end to the conversation, campaigning to make your essay the last word of the subject.   This is the same exact thing you tried to do with the CBM letter and about three or four other times you prematurely declared my to be completely disproven.   

If past is prologue, then you guys are overselling what you have found, or at least realize that your information is far from conclusive.   But maybe I am wrong, and it will be conclusive.  If so then it will be consistent with much of my essay.  You guys are obviously heading in that direction.   Take your post above.   Just a repeat of some of what I covered.   Or your claim above that all in Philadelphia have understood exactly what the NGLA meetings were about.   

Either way, I respectfully question your judgment if refuse to allow me access until after you present your paper to the clubs.  I'd hate for you guys to have to go back and explain that you were wrong about a few things.  I'd imagine that might be a bit awkward.

Quote
Now if someone could actually produce a Macdonald routing done in 1910 or 1911 that would be an entirely different matter and if it turned out to be the way the course was constructed I assure you people like Wayne and me would strenuously recommend to Merion that Macdonald be given something co-design credit for Merion East with Wilson and his committee. But given all the other information available the possibility of a Macdonald routing and design plan for Merion East ever being producted by anyone is, in my opinion, virtually non-existent.

Again, more indication that M&W's involvement is very much an open issue.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 02:03:10 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2008, 08:20:07 AM »
David Moriarty:

Posts like that last one is the reason Wayne Morrison has not participated on these threads in weeks. You should also be well aware why MCC information is not transcribed on here or given to you---eg club permission needs to be gotten for that. We've told you that many times but you seem to continue to ignore it. You made your own contacts with the club and you must be aware of the disposition of that. That is not Wayne's business or mine. Perhaps you think this should be some process such as "Discovery" in a court of law but I think I can assure you it's not. With the continued attitude on your part that's very clear to see in that last post it seems you or anyone else should be able to see why there isn't any cooperation. If you wish to continue to promote yourself as researcher or history writer or whatever, that's fine with us but doing it by constantly challenging us is probably not the way to go about it. At least that's the way we see it.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2008, 12:23:15 PM »
David Moriarty:

Posts like that last one is the reason Wayne Morrison has not participated on these threads in weeks. You should also be well aware why MCC information is not transcribed on here or given to you---eg club permission needs to be gotten for that. We've told you that many times but you seem to continue to ignore it. You made your own contacts with the club and you must be aware of the disposition of that. That is not Wayne's business or mine. Perhaps you think this should be some process such as "Discovery" in a court of law but I think I can assure you it's not. With the continued attitude on your part that's very clear to see in that last post it seems you or anyone else should be able to see why there isn't any cooperation. If you wish to continue to promote yourself as researcher or history writer or whatever, that's fine with us but doing it by constantly challenging us is probably not the way to go about it. At least that's the way we see it.

I am not sure what you are upset about, Tom. 

I've told you again and again that if you guys do not have permission to use that source material, then I agree that you shouldn't use it.   But if you really cannot use it, then I do not understand why you continue to use it rhetorically.   If you are going to continue to use it rhetorically, then I am going to continue to ask you for your sources.  That is only fair. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2008, 01:31:51 PM »
David Moriarty:

Posts like that last one is the reason Wayne Morrison has not participated on these threads in weeks. You should also be well aware why MCC information is not transcribed on here or given to you---eg club permission needs to be gotten for that. We've told you that many times but you seem to continue to ignore it. You made your own contacts with the club and you must be aware of the disposition of that. That is not Wayne's business or mine. Perhaps you think this should be some process such as "Discovery" in a court of law but I think I can assure you it's not. With the continued attitude on your part that's very clear to see in that last post it seems you or anyone else should be able to see why there isn't any cooperation. If you wish to continue to promote yourself as researcher or history writer or whatever, that's fine with us but doing it by constantly challenging us is probably not the way to go about it. At least that's the way we see it.

You've expressed such sentiments about 50 times now Mr. Paul.

Let it go.....
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2008, 02:32:06 PM »
And I'm going to express those sentiments 500 times if he keeps writing posts like that Mr Dugger.

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2008, 02:44:40 PM »
I've told you again and again that if you guys do not have permission to use that source material, then I agree that you shouldn't use it.   But if you really cannot use it, then I do not understand why you continue to use it rhetorically.   If you are going to continue to use it rhetorically, then I am going to continue to ask you for your sources."   


We don't care what you've told us again and again. We have no agreement or understanding with you just Merion. We've said a number of times we will not transcribe that MCC material until we write a report but that does not limit me from offering my opinion on what I believe it means, particularly in light of some of the things you've assumed and concluded in your essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

Again, perhaps you think this material should be treated something like a "Discovery" process in a court of law. It is not going to be treated that way. And you can continue to ask for our sources but you aren't going to get them at least until a report has been written. If we get permission to disseminate transcriptions of that material, we may've considered making it available to you but considering your years long antagonism towards us which continues to this day we won't even consider making it available to you unless and until that antagonism ceases. Again, this is not a court of law with required "discovery", this is pretty much just human nature and if you want some cooperation and collaboration from us you're going to need to earn it by shit-canning your antagonism. You've continued to act on here as if you think you have some special entitlment to this material. Why do you think that?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 02:55:43 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2008, 03:10:21 PM »
"By the way,  I have a pretty good idea as to why you might have asked me about my Toulmin reference.  But do you really want me to tell you why you asked the question?  Or would you rather try to spring the information on me?   Or we could just stop playing these guessing games.  The choice is yours."


I'm simply interested to know if you have any idea why I asked you why you mentioned Toulmin. There's nothing nefarious about the question or the answer and I'm not trying to spring anything on you. I certainly am aware that you have treated this entire Merion subject as an adverserial one and for some years now so it doesn't surprise me that you think a simple question is in some way nefarious. It isn't.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2008, 08:33:09 PM »
We don't care what you've told us again and again. We have no agreement or understanding with you just Merion. We've said a number of times we will not transcribe that MCC material until we write a report but that does not limit me from offering my opinion on what I believe it means, particularly in light of some of the things you've assumed and concluded in your essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

If you want to rely on concealed, unreviewed information as the basis for your posts, then that is your prerogative.  But whether you ought to is an entirely different question.   

1.  Until you come up with the facts to back up your claims and allow us to review them, you might as well just be spinning yarn.  Imagine if I said "I have a Merion routing from 1910, and in my opinion M&W had it created." (For all you know, I do.)   What would your response be?  Would you take my word for it?  Well the response to your unsupported representations should be exactly the same. 

2.   By continuing to opine without providing the underlying source material, you are creating the impression that you are hiding something. Since you claim to be working for Merion on this project, then by implication, you are creating the impression that Merion is hiding something.   But surely if Merion is going to make pronouncements about their history, they will back it up with facts.  So why are you doing otherwise?

Quote
Again, perhaps you think this material should be treated something like a "Discovery" process in a court of law. It is not going to be treated that way. And you can continue to ask for our sources but you aren't going to get them at least until a report has been written. If we get permission to disseminate transcriptions of that material, we may've considered making it available to you but considering your years long antagonism towards us which continues to this day we won't even consider making it available to you unless and until that antagonism ceases. Again, this is not a court of law with required "discovery", this is pretty much just human nature and if you want some cooperation and collaboration from us you're going to need to earn it by shit-canning your antagonism. You've continued to act on here as if you think you have some special entitlment to this material. Why do you think that?

You keep saying I think I have an entitlement or right to the material, but I have never claimed any such thing.  It goes without saying that the clubs are free to do whatever they want with their source material. 

But shouldn't MGC and MCC decide what happens to this information?   I have been informed that you do not speak for Merion.  Yet you continue to posture as if you do.   "we may have considered making it available . . . we won't even consider making it available . . . if you want cooperation and collaboration from us then you're going to need to . . . ."   First you claim your hands are tied by the clubs when it comes to the information, then you act as if the decision is yours.  Which is it?    Do you speak for Merion?

I wonder if the clubs even "understand or appreciate" that you are flaunting your access to their information on a daily basis, and making all sorts of representations that the source material may or may not support?   If the clubs truly want to conceal this information, I doubt they are thrilled with you using it rhetorically. 

I'm simply interested to know if you have any idea why I asked you why you mentioned Toulmin. There's nothing nefarious about the question or the answer and I'm not trying to spring anything on you. I certainly am aware that you have treated this entire Merion subject as an adverserial one and for some years now so it doesn't surprise me that you think a simple question is in some way nefarious. It isn't.

I don't know about "nefarious," but the question certainly is not aimed at advancing the conversation.  It is purely rhetorical.  You just want to try to create the impression that you know something I do not.   Why else ask such a question?    What legitimate purpose does it serve, other than you trying to flaunt what you think you know and I don't.  Same thing you do when you write that we probably do not even know who Griscom, Lloyd, etc. were, or when Wayne claims to have information that will mess up my timeline, or when he challenges me on the timing of the NGLA meeting.   

The problem is, I already know almost all of what you guys tell me.  Yet you continue on as if I have no familiarity with these issues.  You even explain to me things straight out of my essay, while at the same time claiming my essay is full of falsehoods.   

Why is it so important to you guys to prove me wrong?   Why try to use my analysis as if it were your own, while at the same time disparaging it?   I do not get it.

Not trying to be confrontational here Tom, just trying to explain what it looks like from my perspective.    Surely you guys must realize that this is the best way to get to the truth.    Why drag this out?   You post your essay . . . I respond . . . You respond . . . I post Part II and we start all over again.   At this rate we will still be having this conversation during the 1913 US Open!  I don't want that.  Do you?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2008, 09:53:11 PM »
"2.   By continuing to opine without providing the underlying source material, you are creating the impression that you are hiding something. Since you claim to be working for Merion on this project, then by implication, you are creating the impression that Merion is hiding something.   But surely if Merion is going to make pronouncements about their history, they will back it up with facts.  So why are you doing otherwise?"


I'm sorry you feel that way. I would hope that you and others can appreciate that this is the world wide Internet and it has gotten quite a lot of attention. These clubs are not completely oblivious to that and I would hope you and others will appreciate that too.

I would hope that you and others understand that permission about the transcripting of various things needs to be obtained and that you can understand what that means and that my opinion or the opinions of others that have seen it is not the same thing as its transcription disseminated publicly.

If you don't like or don't trust my opinion on some of these things I've seen, then that is your good right, David Moriarty, but it's not the same thing as your apparent expectations and demands to be given access to it as perhaps I have, in the name of what you call "fairness!"

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2008, 10:10:28 PM »
"I have been informed that you do not speak for Merion.  Yet you continue to posture as if you do."


I would suggest, David Moriarty, that you might want to REcheck your information! I know you don't understand that idea and you certainly don't like it but the fact is you'll probably just have to deal with it! :) 

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2008, 10:29:47 PM »
"Why is it so important to you guys to prove me wrong?" 


Simply because we believe you are wrong---very wrong and that it constitutes completely revisionist history of Merion!



"Not trying to be confrontational here Tom, just trying to explain what it looks like from my perspective.    Surely you guys must realize that this is the best way to get to the truth.    Why drag this out?   You post your essay . . . I respond . . . You respond . . . I post Part II and we start all over again.   At this rate we will still be having this conversation during the 1913 US Open!  I don't want that.  Do you?"


What it looks like from your perspective, David Moriarty??

That is truly a withering thought!  ;)

The truth is there, it always has been, and all you've done is try to speciously distort it. You should have come to us in the first place and this probably never would have happened but the truth is you tried to just challenge us and the facts are proving you wrong.  We've told you this for years--it's too bad you never wanted to listen and apparently still aren't willing to listen.

For some reason you seem to think you're special, that you've done all this research (that is just so reminiscent of the mantra of Tom MacWood) and that you should be treated differently by everyone here. That's just not the case. You are just someone who decided to float some revisionist history for God only knows what reason and it got debunked.

It happens, David Moriarty, and it has happened to you. You should have come to us in the first place but you decided to try it via anatagonism and confrontation. Let's hope that can be a lesson for all of us in the future.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 10:32:02 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2008, 11:11:28 PM »

For some reason you seem to think you're special, that you've done all this research (that is just so reminiscent of the mantra of Tom MacWood) and that you should be treated differently by everyone here. That's just not the case. You are just someone who decided to float some revisionist history for God only knows what reason and it got debunked.

It happens, David Moriarty, and it has happened to you. You should have come to us in the first place but you decided to try it via anatagonism and confrontation. Let's hope that can be a lesson for all of us in the future.


TE
I don't recall David bragging about or even mentioning all the research he has done. Are sure you didn't imagine this?

As far as going to you and Wayne, speaking from experience I could see why he might be hesitant. Regretably I shared information with you and Wayne - in good faith - and only got antagonism and confrontation in return. In the end your attempts to discredit were discredited themselves, but it wasn't a pleasant experience. Although I have to say in the end I came away with a new found respect for Pine Valley. They handled themselves with complete class. In fact after I presented my Crump essay, much to my surprise, John Ott invited me to be his guest at club. It is the best reaction I have ever gotten from anything I've ever done. I have no reason to believe Merion would act any differently.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 12:18:24 AM by Tom MacWood »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #73 on: June 11, 2008, 12:04:01 AM »
"2.   By continuing to opine without providing the underlying source material, you are creating the impression that you are hiding something. Since you claim to be working for Merion on this project, then by implication, you are creating the impression that Merion is hiding something.   But surely if Merion is going to make pronouncements about their history, they will back it up with facts.  So why are you doing otherwise?"


I'm sorry you feel that way. I would hope that you and others can appreciate that this is the world wide Internet and it has gotten quite a lot of attention. These clubs are not completely oblivious to that and I would hope you and others will appreciate that too.

I am sure they are not oblivious, which makes it all the more inexplicable that you insist on speaking for them, and making claims relying on their confidential information.   Shouldn't they be the ones in charge of their information?   Aren't you doing them (and us) a disservice by continuing to make claims that maybe or maybe not supported by their sources?   

Quote
I would hope that you and others understand that permission about the transcripting of various things needs to be obtained and that you can understand what that means and that my opinion or the opinions of others that have seen it is not the same thing as its transcription disseminated publicly.

I agree that you guys ought not to disseminate the information without permission, but you have.  And you continue to do so.   When you offer your interpretation, or whn you claim the documents prove this or that, then you are disseminating their information.    There is no other way to characterize it.    The limitation of not putting the exact words down is no limitation at all.  These are issues of the substance of the source, not the wording.   

Quote
If you don't like or don't trust my opinion on some of these things I've seen, then that is your good right, David Moriarty, but it's not the same thing as your apparent expectations and demands to be given access to it as perhaps I have, in the name of what you call "fairness!"

Whether or not I trust you is not the main issue.   I'd expect anyone on here offering their interpretation of source material to make it available for review.  That is the way these things work.  Wayne is well aware of it.  In fact he said the same thing to me when my IMO was posted. 

What would have your reaction been if I had refused to back up my claims with source material?   I can only imagine!

If you guys want to play by your own rules, I can't stop you.  But your opinions have absolutely zero value and zero merit until you back them up.   

"I have been informed that you do not speak for Merion.  Yet you continue to posture as if you do."


I would suggest, David Moriarty, that you might want to REcheck your information! I know you don't understand that idea and you certainly don't like it but the fact is you'll probably just have to deal with it! :) 

Now obviously you are implying that you speak for Merion.   But you didn't really answer the question. 

Do you speak for Merion?  If so, in what capacity?

"Why is it so important to you guys to prove me wrong?" 


Simply because we believe you are wrong---very wrong and that it constitutes completely revisionist history of Merion!


"Not trying to be confrontational here Tom, just trying to explain what it looks like from my perspective.    Surely you guys must realize that this is the best way to get to the truth.    Why drag this out?   You post your essay . . . I respond . . . You respond . . . I post Part II and we start all over again.   At this rate we will still be having this conversation during the 1913 US Open!  I don't want that.  Do you?"


What it looks like from your perspective, David Moriarty??

That is truly a withering thought!  ;)

The truth is there, it always has been, and all you've done is try to speciously distort it. You should have come to us in the first place and this probably never would have happened but the truth is you tried to just challenge us and the facts are proving you wrong.  We've told you this for years--it's too bad you never wanted to listen and apparently still aren't willing to listen.

You keep suggesting that I should have come to you guys.  That is absolutely ridiculous.   Of all the offensive things you have said to me, THIS may be the most offensive.  You know EXACTLY why I did not come to you guys.   I have no need to further embarrass you on this website, but if you keep pretending coming to you guys was ever a legitimate option,  I am sure I can dig up the emails from last go-around if necessary.    You are delusional.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 12:12:13 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Request for Tom MacWood
« Reply #74 on: June 11, 2008, 07:06:40 AM »
"You keep suggesting that I should have come to you guys.  That is absolutely ridiculous.   Of all the offensive things you have said to me, THIS may be the most offensive.  You know EXACTLY why I did not come to you guys.   I have no need to further embarrass you on this website, but if you keep pretending coming to you guys was ever a legitimate option,  I am sure I can dig up the emails from last go-around if necessary.    You are delusional."


Sorry you feel that way. Yes, I think you should have come to us long ago when you said on here you were just trying to understand Merion's history and learn about it. Generally, when someone is interested in writing about the history of a club such as a Bob Labbance, he goes to the people at and around clubs that know more about it than he does. That's generally why you see the names of those people listed in an "Acknowledgment" section.

But in the case of Merion it appears you went about it differently as it appears Tom MacWood did. This isn't speculation on my part as the back pages of this website are filled with this very thing.

The issue that the two of you seemed to want to develop was that Macdonald or Macdonald/Whigam had never been given the credit they deserved for the creation of Merion. I'm not sure I understand why you did that or think that and I still don't.

We didn't agree with that when it began on here over five years ago and we don't agree with it now. We believe the evidence and material from that time, particularly those two reports of the Wilson brothers as well as some coorespondence from the club itself were very thankful to Macdonald and Whigam and it explains what they did.

Alan Wilson's report says Wilson and his committee DESIGNED and constructed Merion East and West and he further says each member of Wilson's committee said to him in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of Merion East and West. Those are his exact words and we believe them to be true and we believe them to be unrefuted.

You're the one who decided to write an essay concluding that Macdonald (Whigam) routed Merion East in 1910. Again, I'm not really sure why you and Tom MacWood seem to think that but we believe it to be completely untrue and we also believe that your essay's attempt to conclude that is a bunch of specious reasoning.

That's what we've continued to say on here because that's what we believe. Of course we want to see the truth of the creation of Merion East told and we believe we're telling it and we believe you aren't. That's really all we're saying here.

Do I speak for Merion? I'm not sure what you mean by that but I think Merion does feel that a few of us have done a lot of research on the history of the club over the years and it seems to me they appreciate that. I'm sure you understand I've been here a long time and have been pretty heavily connected with golf around here and I have an awful lot of friends in golf around here certainly including Merion and many there. Apparently that seems to bother you and I'm sorry it does but I don't think that'll be changed by you or any of this.

Yes, I do think you should have come to us years ago when you began and I think if you had none of this would have happened. I think Tom MacWood should have as well. You know well what I've said about that---eg if someone has a real interest in some club and course, it only makes sense to me that one should go to it and probably often as we have and get to know it.

It occurs to me that the ones you gave the most acknowledgement to for your essay are Tommy Nacarrato who came to Merion once (which I believe I probably helped arrange) and Tom MacWood who has never been there. I don't even believe he's been to Philadelphia, a city whose golf interests he has continued to criticize and poke fun at for years.

To me, this is just not the way to go about these things and I think it should be a lesson to all who read these threads. If anyone out there is interested in really researching these clubs and writing reports, essays or books about them come to us here first who know them well, it will work out much better that way in the end.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 07:13:54 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back