Gentlemen, you both have said you don't want to turn this into another Merion thread, and yet you have, in the nattering back and forth stylistically, trying to gain an upper hand on an issue that has been beaten to death, and has, as far as I can tell, produced no realistic conclusions of pure fact.
As to the archive; do you go to the library expecting every book in it is factual and true? Do you go to the newpaper office to research a question on an old event and completely believe that what you read in the paper as to the account of that happening is completely factual, without independent corraberation?
If you go to the proposed USGA AA and find the document of Barker's stick map, does that conclusively prove anything? I say no. You go to an archive to collect the available materials (documents, old photos, letters from principles involved, etc.,) and then you draw your own conclusions.
I've been trying hard to get a handle on the phenomenon we are witnessing between these combatants on this underlying theme of who is the correct researcher and historian. I've sadly come to the realization that if these gentlemen are going to continue this seemingly endless sniping, that they must at least think some of us are reading it for illumination, and they have some notion that their position will be held as the truth and light of all these historical/research methods and exercises. I'd hate to think that they only believe they are using this open forum for themselves when they could do this on IM and come back to the forum if they can ever achieve a consensus on anything beyond -the sun will come up tomorrow!
In trying to understand the methods and attitudes of "real" historians, I came across this statement from Prof Em., William Harris of Middlebury, when writing an essay on the most credible source of the Ancient Roman Empire. (BTW) he seems to point to Livy and Tacitus as the most reliable chronicalers of the history, and even warns that Ceasar's first hand commentaries of the Gallic Wars was basically 'propoganda' and not to be given full confidence as accurate historical facts since he had a big agenda.
But, I digress... and in the absence of Dr. Katz coming on here and straightening this mess of emotion and pride out about whose history and research methods are best, consider what a real Shrink said about these kind of historical debating academies and motivations and know you all aren't the first or last guys to claim historical scholarly upperhandedness:
One thinks of the modern historians who ignore the Civil War, WWI and WWII as areas of historical research, while delving deep into the fragmented and muddled annals of the ancient world. Jung pointed out long ago this psychological fascination with the past as part of the search for the self in the annals of one's own personal history. Prof William Harris
I ask respectfully, are these endless arguments over fragmented and sometimes muddled annals of a certain golf course not a manifestation of personal inner needs to define self... by all parties so engaged? If so, is this how you all want to define yourselves to the group at large, if indeed you are writing you ideas for more than eachother?
Bottom line, put the documents and photos and actual period material you have in the darn archive and trust people who actually are motivated to learn or query this stuff to be smart enough to draw their own conclusions. Othewise you insult everyone's intelligence by trying to tell them over and over that your version is correct. You only needed to say it once, the consumer of the material and essays can take it from there!