Phillip, you seem to have gotten yourself quite worked up here and I am not sure why. I think you might want to step back and reconsider your accusation that I have been unethical here. Wayne and Tom's research, analysis, and selective use of the core information speaks for itself on this particular issue. As does mine.
Everything I write is my opinion based upon my understanding of the historical record at the time. Everything is subject to change as more information becomes available. I am playing no games, but doing the best I can with what I have at the time. I am trying to consider everything to which I have access, and I will take all the information I can get it, even if I have to sift through information that is mostly unreliable and incomplete.
You seem to be telling me that I only have two options: Accept everything they say as gospel truth even though they have not offered any support whatsoever, and even though I know enough about this era to know that what they are saying is not accurate; or Entirely ignore everything they say because they haven't supported any of it.
There is a third route, which is a bit more complicated and difficult, and isn't the preferred method, but they leave me no choice:
I will discount, ignore, and/or challenge any and all unsupported and self-serving statements made about Merion's history and about my essay. In addition, I will carefully examine their statements for internal and external inconsistencies, and for statements that hurt their claims, and I will use what I learn in my search for and analysis of what really happened. Or to put it bluntly, I will use what they say to undermine their own claims,.
There is nothing unethical about this. In fact it is how interpretation and analysis works when it is apparent that one side might not be entirely coming clean with all the documents and information. It is just a matter of trying to see through waters that others have insisted upon muddying.
Look at it this way. I don't think they would outright and blatantly lie about what it says in those meeting minutes. Presumably others, like the ethical men at Merion, would call them upon blatant lies so even if they wanted to outright and blatantly lie (and I am not suggesting this,) they are unlikely to do it in a situation where they will likely be caught. So there is probably a grain of truth and accuracy in about everything they say about the meeting minutes. These guys just happen to interpret it in a manner that places the truth in a light most favorable to what they want others to believe. (If this was not going on, they would simply tell us what these documents say, and let us figure it out for ourselves. ) The trick for me is to try and separate what is true from what is spin or interpretation. That is all I am doing. Nothing unethical about it. On my side at least.
I don't want to get into legal mumbo-jumbo here, but this situation reminds me of certain heresay exceptions sometimes known as an 'admission against interest' and 'declaration against interest.' The technical details are irrelevant, but the justification for the exceptions is based on human nature and may shed some light on why I have no problem using their words against them. People rarely make statements against their interests unless the statements are true and accurate. So when a person makes a statement that goes against that person's interests or that hurts rather than helps that person's claims, then that statement is allowed to be used against them, even it was heresay. In other words, people lie or exaggerate to help themselves, not hurt themselves. So if what they say hurts them, it is most likely true, and can be used against them.
Think if this in terms of TEPaul's and Mike Cirba's claim that M&W returned to the site on the eve of construction to choose the final routing. This flies directly in the face of their repeated claim that M&W were not directly or significantly involved in planning the course. They wouldn't make up something that directly flew in the face of their entire argument! They may try to spin it, discount it, or dismiss it, but they wouldn't make up the underlying fact that M&W returned to the site on the eve of construction to choose the final routing.
So while I doubt the accuracy of much of what they say, especially when it comes to their baseless attacks on my essay, I believe them when they tell me that [/i]M&W returned to the site on the eve of construction to choose the final routing.[/i]
I may be mistaken in my trust of them on this point, but I don't think they would make something up that virtually destroys everything they have been saying for years!
And by the way, I believe parts of some of the other details that have been offered about what the minutes say, (and can confirm some of them them via other sources.) But I nonetheless disagree with the meaning and spin they are putting on these details.
So yes, there is a double-standard here, but it is one created by their inherently duplicitous tactic of insisting that others accept their story as truth while refusing to provide any basis or support.
1. We should ignore, disregard, and challenge TEPaul's, Wayne Morrison's, and Mike Cirba's claims about Merion's history and their claims about the validity of my essay. They have refused to offer any support or basis for these claims.
2) We should carefully analyze what they say, and focus on internal and external inconsistencies, gaps in time, logic, and causation, and statements made against their interest to try and figure out what really happened. To the extent that they admit anything that contradicts their claims, we can and should assume that information is true and use that information against them.
_______________________
As for your claim that Wayne has valid reasons to keep his information confidential, I agree that this may have been the case, but Wayne has not kept the information confidential but has instead selectively used it himself rhetorically and continues to allow it to be selectively used rhetorically on the World Wide Web and elsewhere.
If he had obligations of privacy or confidentiality to the clubs, he long ago breached them by using the clubs' private material as the supposed basis to attack my work and for allowing this cherry-picking to continue. It is he who cannot have it both ways. Either he comes clean and backs up the claims, or he honors whatever obligations he has to the clubs and stops allowing the information to be used piecemeal for rhetorical purposes. It is an affront to me, gca.com, and the clubs for Wayne and TEPaul and Mike Cirba to wield Wayne's special relationship with the clubs as a sword to attack me, while also claiming the same relationship prevents them for giving me an opportunity to defend against the baseless attacks!
Until they figure this out, I will continue not only to defend myself, but will also continue to try and figure out who did what and when at Merion, and will carefully note what they have said about the Meeting Minutes. This is what I have done since they started leaking information about the minutes.
_________________________________________________