[wsmorrison]

Wayne Morrison, 

Welcome back.
 
Your recent posts are nothing but unfounded and unsupported attacks on me, my essay, and (inexplicably and unnecessarily) Tom Macwood.   Yet without factual or analytical support, your comments are nothing but empty platitudes, completely devoid of any substance or value. They do not speak to the quality or accuracy of my essay, but rather to your anger and your continued inability to address these issues in an open, frank, and fact-based manner. 

1.  Will you ever offer any facts to back up your insults and attacks? 

2.   If you have nothing of substance to offer to the conversation, then what is the purpose or your return?

3.  Months ago you wrote that you would provide me with copies of the documents you photographed at the PA Historical Society.  When will I be receiving my copies?   

Spare me your welcomes.  They are not welcome from you.

While you have consistently defended any perceived criticism of your essay and launched personal attacks at those that did, first subtly as you annoy your critics, and once they've taken the bait and returned the attacks, usually at a heightened state, you then claim victim status and launch back in an ever escalating spiral of poor behavior.  All because you take criticism of your essay in a personal manner when you were politely warned not to from the very beginning.  I have not participated on these threads because I am too busy to and I cannot stand you or MacWood.  You stoop so low and attack so strongly that you discourage any real debate.  You may think that Mike Cirba and Tom Paul are the most egregious perpetrators of this kind of behavior, but you fail to recognize that you and MacWood drive people to their baser natures.  You are to blame.

My characterization of your essay is accurate.  You do not have enough of the facts or archival materials to know otherwise.  If ignorance is bliss, you are the king of bliss.  I'll let others that have little idea about the subject matter be swayed by your wordy essay and seemingly exhaustive research.  The fact is, anyone that has a basic understanding of the history of the golf club easily recognizes the flaws and holes in your argument.  There are too many to ignore, that is the only reason Tom and I bothered to study this early part of the golf course's history, because you butchered it and twisted it so badly to the outcome you and MacWood longed for.  That doesn't make it correct and neither does your poor scholarship, limited research materials, distance from original sources and error proned conclusions.  I don't want to have an open and frank fact-based discussion with you.  I cannot stand you or your methods.  You have not demonstrated an ability to recognize fact from fiction, assumptions from supported evidence nor an ability to treat people (not their criticisms) with even a modicum of common sense and courtesy.  I have come to understand why more people on this site do not call you on your outrageous behavior.  They turn you off completely.  Only a few on here have bothered to wade through your cesspool of behavior and ideas.  I choose not to be one of them.

Let me answer your numbered points and then you may be sure I will never respond to either you or MacWood again.  I've said so in the past, but you two have a habit of making personal attacks on me and others that no longer reply to these threads and continually make lies and false statements.  The only thing I can attribute to this behavior is that you both need to be in the spotlight, you both want others to see you being victimized by others (when in fact it is you two that are the instigators) and you want to divert attention from your error-filled essays in the hopes of promoting incorrect histories.  I will not play this game any more.  I will resign from this site today so that you may understand the commitment to this conviction. 

1.  To repeat myself, because you refuse to acknowledge my prior comments on this subject.  I will complete the history with Tom Paul and present it to MCC and MGC.  If we have their permission, we will submit it to the USGA.  This history will not be presented on this site.  It is no longer an appropriate site for such efforts.  You and Tom MacWood aided the downfall of this site in your behavior and the quality of your work.  I criticized the work, now after weeks of churlish behavior, I criticize you as well.  Any site that enables such actions no longer merits further consideration.  Some on this site will get to see the history.  Perhaps if you come to Merion GC, you will gain access to it in the Archives.  It will not be seen on here, I can assure you of that.

2.  Figure it out for yourself, Mr. Expert Researcher.

3.  Never.  Consider your past behavior including lies, misrepresentations and a systematic effort to personally attack me.  Now also add on your tag team partner's behaviors and lies.  It is all too much.  I am finished.  If one of your aims was to get me off this panel, you succeeded.  Yet, your aim to get your twisted version of history into acceptance will be thwarted.  By the facts.  Know this, I will never share anything with you or MacWood.  Reduce your expectations to zero and you won't be disappointed.  If allowed, we will share the information with some on this site, but you and MacWood will never be included.  We won't stop you from coming to Philadelphia to see for yourselves, but I assure you we will not grant you any special considerations.

I tried to be nice to you, I tried to share information with you.  You took advantage of the situation and tried at every turn to turn it against me with lies, exaggerations and distortions.  Your motives for appearing interested in sharing information immediately became apparent.  You did send me a landscape plan, a limited amount of material from the Sayres collection at the Historical Society of PA and two RR plats.  I had blurry copies of all the Sayres materials you sent me, and had them from early 2003.  They were of little use because the HSOP copy machines were not very good.  Since then, I got permission (because of my position at the Club) to photograph the documents.  I did so and planned to send them to you, but your actions and words changed that plan.  As to the RR plats, you sent me two related to the 1909 deed.  The RR plats I used to determine the Johnson Farm boundaries and other aspects of land deals associated with the course development were located elsewhere.  I submitted the landscape plan you sent to the Archives and cited your contribution.  Thank you for your very limited acts of generosity. 

[TEPaul]

"When will I be receiving my copies?"

I guess I must live in Jub-Jub land because I'm quite sure I will never understand how anyone can think they can constantly criticize someone and constantly accuse them of being insulting and then expect cooperation from them. To that question above I'd think the obvious response and answer would be----"Don't hold your breath."  

[Thomas MacWood]

"When will I be receiving my copies?"

I guess I must live in Jub-Jub land because I'm quite sure I will never understand how anyone can think they can constantly criticize someone and constantly accuse them of being insulting and then expect cooperation from them. To that question above I'd think the obvious response and answer would be----"Don't hold your breath."  

Wayne
From where I come from when you give someone your word you keep it, even if they criticise you. It appears there is different standard at work here.

Does this mean I am free to share the info you sent me with others?

[TEPaul]

"Do you think Alison might have been angling for some work there?"

Mike:

Around 1920-22 Hugh Alison proposed that he and William Flynn form a partnership. Hugh Wilson expressed his opinion (in the "Agronomy" letters) that he did not think that was a particularly good idea---at least not for Flynn.

Around that same time (1921) Alison had done a comprehensive report for Pine Valley which became what's been referred to as the work of the "1921 advisory Committee". Flynn was essentially assigned to Pine Valley (for apparently a few days a week) just before or during this time to complete various work at Pine Valley to either repair agronomy or finish off the golf course. It also seems likely that Flynn drew a salary from Pine Valley at this time.

It's hard to say what the relationship between Alision and Flynn was but it appears it may've been a good one. Oddly, in the late 1920s Shinnecock hired Flynn to do a three nine plan for the course and they got Alison to review Flynn's plans which he did in fairly comprehensive and quite glowing terms.

Also, it seems those English architects like Mackenzie and Alison were always looking to partner up with architects in the specific regions of potential projects. I guess the reasons are pretty obvious---eg they could take advantage of the local crews and such of those local architects such as a William Flynn.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
From where I come from when you give someone your word you keep it, even if they criticise you. It appears there is different standard at work here.

Does this mean I am free to share the info you sent me with others?"

Tom MacWood,

You and Moriarty didn't simply criticize me, don't delude yourself into thinking it was merely that.  You both lied and repeatedly accused me of things I never did.  You went way beyond the pale on many occasions, even while I steered clear of the threads.  Basically you two launched unilateral attacks without provocation.  The motivation for your actions are as clear as your current threats.

Let me be perfectly clear about this.  You are not free to share any parts of the Flynn book manuscript that I gave you.  That was sent to you on the condition that you do not share it with anyone and you review and comment on it.  You did not respond with any comments nor any indication that your reviewed it.  You already violated our agreement and should send it back to me without retaining any copy, hard or digital.  The conditions you accepted that document still holds firm and fast.  The document is several years old.  It does not represent the current state of the book.  What purpose would it serve you in making it available to others?  Your motives are clear as can be.  It is to harm and injure.  Such actions must be on your mind as you continuously threaten with disseminating it. 

Please know that if you do share the material with anyone and publish it on this site, in whole or in part, you will violate the law not just your word.  We'll see if Ran stands by you in that case for he will be vulnerable as well as you.  Everyone can now see you for who you are, a rotten and evil man.  Do what you will and suffer the consequences.  The book is currently 1650 pages.  How many pages do you have, about 600?  Try to avoid being so cruel, even if it has no chance of succeeding.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
I would beg to differ. It seems to me you and TE are saying that keeping one's word is conditional. Sharing info and publishing it are two different things.

[wsmorrison]

Wayne
I would beg to differ. It seems to me you and TE are saying that keeping one's word is conditional. Sharing info and publishing it are two different things.

I am fully aware of that.  This is why your post (#242) on the previous page was so disturbing:

"No I did not share your material with Moriarty (that same answer the previous ten times you asked). But I will be glad to post the Merion part on GCA. It would be interesting exercise to compare and contrast the two reports. We could even invite your make-believe super secret academic to give his two cents...in total secrecy of course.

Keeping one's word in the face of such dramatic changes in the other party's words and actions is very difficult when it comes to you and Moriarty.  Soon I will not have to contend with either one of you as soon as Ran reads his IM and pushes the delete button on my membership.

[TEPaul]

"From where I come from when you give someone your word you keep it, even if they criticise you. It appears there is different standard at work here."


There probably is. Around here we value a standard that most refer to as "commonsense".


"Does this mean I am free to share the info you sent me with others?"


If Wayne said no would it make any difference to you? I sincerely doubt it.  

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayno
Please explain to me why I must keep my word but you can go back on your word because you have been criticised. I haven't been keeping score but my guess is I have been criticised a touch more than you. No matter, it seems we have a double standard at work here.

Speaking of cruelty, I will not present any part to Wayne's material on GCA. I shouldn't have suggested I would. It was my attempt to illustrate the dramatic differences in the two essays. There really is no comparison, but I was out of line.

[wsmorrison]

Thank you for recognizing this, Tom.  I do appreciate it. 

Wouldn't you say there is a significant difference between criticizing and lying?  I never urinated on anyone's grave, though you and Moriarty constantly repeated that outrageous statement as fact.  When you had no idea at all if it was true.  The suggestion of which and the persistent repeating of it served your purpose and that is why you continued in that behavior.  There should be consequences when the behavior is so far beyond the pale.  Moriarty makes a habit of presenting numerous lies and distortions.  I reached my limit.  Perhaps your limits exceed my own.   For that failing, I do apologize.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
Your friend has been repeating the story for at last two or three years - I estimate he has mentioned the incident at least a dozen times. I don't recall you ever correcting him or distancing yourself from the nickname Piss Boy.

I have no idea if the story is true or not, only that TE has repeated it often. Either way, true story or a joke, it makes little difference in my view, just the thought is disturbing enough.

[TEPaul]

"Soon I will not have to contend with either one of you as soon as Ran reads his IM and pushes the delete button on my membership."


Don't do that Wayne. Just don't do it. If you're disappointed with this site----and I most certainly understand why you might be---just don't post (as you hadn't been recently), but don't unregister.

I have no idea why more on here don't seem to recognize a kind of philosophical or ideological cancer that's been creeping into this discussion board. Much of it, in my opinion, comes from Moriarty's own ideas as he constantly demands that these threads and these discussions on here conform to some kind of legal or courtroom process or procedure whereby anyone must produce physical evidence to back up what they say on here or else not say it.

In my opinion, that is absolutely preposterous! While documentation is certainly welcome and is necessarily more benefical it should not be a requirement for the things we say on here.

First and foremost this is a discussion section made up of OPINIONS.

That's the way it's always been and should remain. I sure hope Ran Morrissett and Ben Dewar do not see that otherwise, at this point. The worst thing that could happen to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is for it to become restricted and basically corrupted by some ideology of someone like David Moriarty complete with his ideas on courtroom or legal style procedures such as "Discovery" (obviously why he keeps demanding you send him your material). This is made more ludicrous by the fact he demands these things from others when he does nothing of the kind himself even if he completely hypocritically says he does. Many of the things he tried to pass of as "fact" in his recent essay aren't anything of the kind as much as he tries to convince us they are.

Arguing endlessly and insults is not benefical and should be minimized but this is another matter altogether and far more negative. If that's the way this place is to be I'll be more than willing to leave with you. The last thing this website needs is to be taken over and structured into some philosophy of a David Moriarty or Tom MacWood----or anyone else, for that matter.

It should always remain open and free for anyone (registered) to express their OPINIONS as they want to, provided it has something to do with golf course architecture.

[TEPaul]

"Wayne
Your friend has been repeating the story for at last two or three years - I estimate he has mentioned the incident at least a dozen times. I don't recall you ever correcting him or distancing yourself from the nickname Piss Boy.

I have no idea if the story is true or not, only that TE has repeated it often. Either way, true story or a joke, it makes little difference in my view, just the thought is disturbing enough."



It was a JOKE, Tom MacWood! Please tell me we do not now need to have some argument with you over the vast difference between a JOKE and a FACT!

What are you going to try to do next---completely kill humor on here because it might offend your delicate sensibilities on some architect or issue? If that's the case why did you make that sick joke about Govan poisoning Crump's candy instead of Crump committing suicide? Talk about a double standard, not to mention a real lack of taste.   
 

[Thomas MacWood]

An absurd story about arguing over a candybar is humor. Desecrating (or saying you desicrated) someone's grave is not.

Its a free country. People do a lot of crazy shit. Burning the American flag, burning crosses in front of homes, incasing a crucifix in urin and calling it art and pissing on the grave of a respected figure. People can do what they want, it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[wsmorrison]

Tom Paul,

I already sent an IM to Ran requesting my removal from the membership on this site.  I don't have the time or inclination to devote to the site as I once did.  I feel it is time to depart.  While there are so many interesting people on this site, including some notable recent additions, I cannot tolerate the minority of louts allowed on the site.  The free reign allowed Moriarty and MacWood presents a platform I do not wish to be a party to any longer.  I will maintain friendships and will continue to work in golf architecture history, it simply will not be shared on this site any longer. 

Tom MacWood,

Piss Boy has nothing at all to do with what you perceive as a desecration of a grave site.  So when Tom references Piss Boy, it has nothing at all to do with it.  You can forget about blaming Tom Paul for any of this.  Have you ever bothered to watch the piss boy scene from Mel Brook's History of the World movie that I've posted on here many times?  It shows the King of France's piss boy as a servant.  That is where it comes from, not what you think.  This should occur to you more easily than it does.  Firstly, it never happened.  Secondly, it was a moniker that we humorously shared over the course of thousands of hours of driving and researching over the years.  A golf historian in NY was part of the joke since he constantly ribbed me for being nothing more than Tom's lacky. It was all in good fun and had nothing at all to do with Raynor as that never happened.  Get it or not, that is the truth.  But you demonstrate an inability to recognize truth from fiction and unsupported assumptions from fact.  You don't.

You may think your absurd story of Crump and Govan was humor, it was not. 

[TEPaul]

"An absurd story about arguing over a candybar is humor. Desecrating (or saying you desicrated) someone's grave is not."

That is completely preposterous and a perfect example of your hypocricy AND pomposity! It is also an example of your years-long snideness regarding Philadelphia culminating in this label you dreamed up---"The Philadelphia Syndrome", a label you seem unwilling to even engage our concern about.

If you want any of this to EVER get any better, MacWood, that is a label you certainly should RECANT and apologize for right here and right NOW!! It's both insulting and maddening and the fact you don't recognize that or care is just so damned indicative of you and everything we feel about you.

Nothing on here will ever change between us until you shitcan that attitude represented by your insuling label--"The Philadelpha Syndrome".

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I doubt Tom MacWood is capable of seeing even Mel Brooks' humor. He probably thinks it's insenstive and insulting to some golf course architect somewhere!   

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Ya know, there are smarter guys than me, but I recall you writing on that "pissing incident" several times, and never inserting the smiley (as always I could be wrong)  I was never quite sure it was a joke or not.  And, I am a Mel Brooks fan (often referring to the moving mole) but I don't have a photographic memory of every line ever in his movies.

So, its not too far fetched that others would be in the same position.  Argue with Tom Mac all you want, but don't focus on that part of it......

Carry on.

[John Mayhugh]

I'm glad to hear that the grave desecration never actually happened.  But from the telling of the story, it was never clear to me it was meant as a joke.

I don't understand how parties in this ongoing Merion "pissing contest" can be so quick to take offense yet have no problem with offending.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

You're probably right about that. Many years ago Dan Kelly told me if you're going to use humor on here try to do it without that ridiculous crutch of an emoticon to indicate it even is humor. I think he's entirely right about that but I'm afraid neither Dan Kelly nor I fully appreciated how low ANY SENSE of what humor really is on this website. Frankly, it's just abominable and I doubt it'll get better. It surely may be this odd and different world of Internet communication but unfortunately I think it's a bit more than just that.

(by the way, I didn't use an emoticon on this post because I'm not joking and I doubt I need one of those things to elucidate what I just said or how I feel. Would you agree with that?).

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Humor on a discussion board is certainly more challenging than in person humor.  Written humor is an art different than spoken humor. So, we agree.  I may disagree with my friend Dan Kelly in the use of emoticons. It is possible to over use them, but they are helpful, esp. since you have to assume that some readers will not have read every post and get the connection.

There are some funny guys on this website.  Humor is abundant.  Bad attempts at humor are equally abundant.  Sometimes, things just don't translate.  However, with a single smiley, I think your pissing on the grave story gets a laugh.  Without it, it gets a big "eeewhh" .

See the difference there?

[Peter Pallotta]

TE, Jeff - speaking of Mel Brooks and revisionism, do you remember the Mel Brooks-Carl Reiner 2000 Year Old Man skits? Examples, from memory:

"Tell us what life was like back..."
"We were dumb!"
"Dumb?"
"We were so dumb we didn't even know there was such a thing as girls"
"You didn't know..."
"We just thought they were soft cuddly fellas".
"Well, how did you find out..."
"That was Phil".
"Phil?"
"One day, Phil came in with a BIG smile on his face, and he said 'I think there's LADIES here...'"

"In 2000 years you must've lived in a lot of places"
"I've lived everywhere. I've lived in caves, I lived in HUTS, I lived in trees..."
"What was your favourite..."
"1121 Park Avenue. That was a terrific place. A big foyer, nice windows that opened up...a terrific place"

"You must've met a lot of people..."
"I've met everyone"
"Can you tell us who...."
"I met Julius Caeser, I met Moses, I met Joan of Arc..."
"You knew Joan of Arc?"
"KNEW her? I WENT with her!"

Peter   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

I see a trip to Blockbuster in my near future!

[TEPaul]

"Sometimes, things just don't translate.  However, with a single smiley, I think your pissing on the grave story gets a laugh.  Without it, it gets a big "eeewhh" ."

JeffB:

In that case let's give the pissing on the grave story a great big SMILEY----PERMANENTLY!!!!

However, I doubt Tom MacWood would see the difference even with it!!   

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

Wayne Morrison, 

Welcome back.
 
Your recent posts are nothing but unfounded and unsupported attacks on me, my essay, and (inexplicably and unnecessarily) Tom Macwood.   Yet without factual or analytical support, your comments are nothing but empty platitudes, completely devoid of any substance or value. They do not speak to the quality or accuracy of my essay, but rather to your anger and your continued inability to address these issues in an open, frank, and fact-based manner. 

1.  Will you ever offer any facts to back up your insults and attacks? 

2.   If you have nothing of substance to offer to the conversation, then what is the purpose or your return?

3.  Months ago you wrote that you would provide me with copies of the documents you photographed at the PA Historical Society.  When will I be receiving my copies?   

Spare me your welcomes.  They are not welcome from you.

While you have consistently defended any perceived criticism of your essay and launched personal attacks at those that did, first subtly as you annoy your critics, and once they've taken the bait and returned the attacks, usually at a heightened state, you then claim victim status and launch back in an ever escalating spiral of poor behavior.  All because you take criticism of your essay in a personal manner when you were politely warned not to from the very beginning.  I have not participated on these threads because I am too busy to and I cannot stand you or MacWood.  You stoop so low and attack so strongly that you discourage any real debate.  You may think that Mike Cirba and Tom Paul are the most egregious perpetrators of this kind of behavior, but you fail to recognize that you and MacWood drive people to their baser natures.  You are to blame.

My characterization of your essay is accurate.  You do not have enough of the facts or archival materials to know otherwise.  If ignorance is bliss, you are the king of bliss.  I'll let others that have little idea about the subject matter be swayed by your wordy essay and seemingly exhaustive research.  The fact is, anyone that has a basic understanding of the history of the golf club easily recognizes the flaws and holes in your argument.  There are too many to ignore, that is the only reason Tom and I bothered to study this early part of the golf course's history, because you butchered it and twisted it so badly to the outcome you and MacWood longed for.  That doesn't make it correct and neither does your poor scholarship, limited research materials, distance from original sources and error proned conclusions.  I don't want to have an open and frank fact-based discussion with you.  I cannot stand you or your methods.  You have not demonstrated an ability to recognize fact from fiction, assumptions from supported evidence nor an ability to treat people (not their criticisms) with even a modicum of common sense and courtesy.  I have come to understand why more people on this site do not call you on your outrageous behavior.  They turn you off completely.  Only a few on here have bothered to wade through your cesspool of behavior and ideas.  I choose not to be one of them.

Let me answer your numbered points and then you may be sure I will never respond to either you or MacWood again.  I've said so in the past, but you two have a habit of making personal attacks on me and others that no longer reply to these threads and continually make lies and false statements.  The only thing I can attribute to this behavior is that you both need to be in the spotlight, you both want others to see you being victimized by others (when in fact it is you two that are the instigators) and you want to divert attention from your error-filled essays in the hopes of promoting incorrect histories.  I will not play this game any more.  I will resign from this site today so that you may understand the commitment to this conviction. 

1.  To repeat myself, because you refuse to acknowledge my prior comments on this subject.  I will complete the history with Tom Paul and present it to MCC and MGC.  If we have their permission, we will submit it to the USGA.  This history will not be presented on this site.  It is no longer an appropriate site for such efforts.  You and Tom MacWood aided the downfall of this site in your behavior and the quality of your work.  I criticized the work, now after weeks of churlish behavior, I criticize you as well.  Any site that enables such actions no longer merits further consideration.  Some on this site will get to see the history.  Perhaps if you come to Merion GC, you will gain access to it in the Archives.  It will not be seen on here, I can assure you of that.

2.  Figure it out for yourself, Mr. Expert Researcher.

3.  Never.  Consider your past behavior including lies, misrepresentations and a systematic effort to personally attack me.  Now also add on your tag team partner's behaviors and lies.  It is all too much.  I am finished.  If one of your aims was to get me off this panel, you succeeded.  Yet, your aim to get your twisted version of history into acceptance will be thwarted.  By the facts.  Know this, I will never share anything with you or MacWood.  Reduce your expectations to zero and you won't be disappointed.  If allowed, we will share the information with some on this site, but you and MacWood will never be included.  We won't stop you from coming to Philadelphia to see for yourselves, but I assure you we will not grant you any special considerations.

I tried to be nice to you, I tried to share information with you.  You took advantage of the situation and tried at every turn to turn it against me with lies, exaggerations and distortions.  Your motives for appearing interested in sharing information immediately became apparent.  You did send me a landscape plan, a limited amount of material from the Sayres collection at the Historical Society of PA and two RR plats.  I had blurry copies of all the Sayres materials you sent me, and had them from early 2003.  They were of little use because the HSOP copy machines were not very good.  Since then, I got permission (because of my position at the Club) to photograph the documents.  I did so and planned to send them to you, but your actions and words changed that plan.  As to the RR plats, you sent me two related to the 1909 deed.  The RR plats I used to determine the Johnson Farm boundaries and other aspects of land deals associated with the course development were located elsewhere.  I submitted the landscape plan you sent to the Archives and cited your contribution.  Thank you for your very limited acts of generosity. 

Wayne,

Thanks for your attempts at answering my questions.  I have a few follow-ups.

1.  In the past you have indicated that you were hoarding the source material at the behest of the clubs.  Yet this message makes it clear you are hoarding the source material out revenge or anger or hatred or some more base visceral reaction.   Which is it?    Shouldn't it be the clubs who decide what is shared and what is not, and not you?

2.  The perceived yet unidentified shortcomings in my essay obviously are causing you concern.   How do you expect the alleged shortcomings will ever be addressed if you cocoon the source material? 

3.  If you had the Sayres material all along, then why did you repeatedly indicate to me that you did not have any usable versions of what I sent you?  And why did you misrepresent the record for so long in various threads, and even apparently in your own unpublished tome? 

4.  You neglected to mention a number of items you requested from me and I provided for you, including but not limited to:
-- the Nov.  15, 1910 Board Report to the members,
-- the Site Committee's July 1, 1910 report to the Board,
-- the June 10, 1910 H. H. Barker letter
-- the Nov. 15, 1910 H.G. Lloyd letter, and subscription signature box
-- multiple newspaper articles tracing various property purchases relating to Merion
-- the correct interpretation of the deed you and TEPaul had been using to mislead us all as to when Merion became involved in the land purchase
-- my explanation of the nature of the three way transactions between Merion HDC and Lloyd.
-- the identity and explanation of Rothwell's role in the transaction.
-- the online location of all of the other railroad maps.

5.  I apologize if you are hurt or offended by my discussion of your mishandling of source material, but you and TEPaul have a nasty habit of misunderstanding, misrepresenting, misinterpreting, ignoring, overlooking, and concealing important information.   This gives me pause since you and TEPaul have apparently been entrusted to document the history of two important clubs without a meaningful review process.    Not only that but the USGA is relying on you to put together a meaningful archive?  Yikes.

6.  I am surprised that you would break your word over such petty personal animosity.   If your honesty and integrity are so cheaply compromised, then why would you expect anyone to believe anything you write about anything? 

7.  Throughout your post, you blame me for the behavior of TEPaul, Mike Cirba, and even your own behavior.   Are you three not competent adults?   Do you really believe that I am "to blame" for your inability to control yourself?   What of personal responsibility?

8.  Again, you insult and attack ad nauseum, but fail to substantively address even a single problem with my essay.

9.  Why the big state secret about your previous work on Merion?  Surely with 8 years of research behind it it cannot be that bad, can it?  After all you now claim to have had the Sayres material since 2003.  It must contain most of the same material as my essay.  I'd like to see it.  Maybe I'd learn something.   

10.  You constantly lump Tom Macwood in with me.  While I am honored, it does him a disservice.  I am responsible for my own work.   And unlike you and TEPaul, Tom MacWood and I have no partnership. 

________________________________

Wouldn't you say there is a significant difference between criticizing and lying?  I never urinated on anyone's grave, though you and Moriarty constantly repeated that outrageous statement as fact.  When you had no idea at all if it was true.  The suggestion of which and the persistent repeating of it served your purpose and that is why you continued in that behavior.  There should be consequences when the behavior is so far beyond the pale.  Moriarty makes a habit of presenting numerous lies and distortions.  I reached my limit.  Perhaps your limits exceed my own.   For that failing, I do apologize.

I don't believe I have ever repeated this outrageous story.  TEPaul is quite thrilled to repeat it often, though.   The disturbing thing to me is that it rings true, whether it is or not.   That must be why TEPaul thinks it is so worth repeating.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()