The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt. These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version.
David,
I would voice the exact same criticism of you.
It's clear we're never to agree on this and I don't have the time or inclination to argue further.
Take care.
The main difference is that I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I reference what I am relying on on and people are free to see it differently if they like. In contrast, you guys insist that we simply trust you and take your word for the critical documents mean, without documentation. I am not asking anyone to trust me. They can verify. You guys want our trust without allowing us to verify, and not even Ronald Reagan would fall for that one!
One current example: Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course. If this is true, so be it, but let's see it. What did the documents say? You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.
___________________________________________________
TEPAUL and MIKE: WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?__________________________________________________________
Dave Schmidt,
I think Mike and I are very far apart. There is an elemental difference between our two approaches.
My approach is to
take all the first-hand accounts seriously and at their word, and to come up with an understanding which is consistent with what each and every one of them said. I don't throw out reputable first-hand accounts just because I might disagree with them. In fact I have taken all those statements very seriously; and almost all of what I have figured out so far is based primarily on Hugh Wilson's 1916 Chapter. Until I figured it out by really trying to take Wilson at his word, this first-hand account had been misunderstood for years, not only on these boards, but also in every account of early Merion that I have ever read.
Mike's approach is different. To Mike, Whigham's unambiguous, first-hand, statement must be considered
false unless independently proven true. Given that Whigham was the only one there
who spoke directly and ambiguosly to the issue one way or another this is absolutely illogical. We cannot summarily throw out our best evidence, a direct and unambiguous first-hand statement just because Mike and others don't want to believe it is accurate! Mike has even dismissed and discounted portions of Hugh Wilson's own writing!
This is a fundamentally flawed approach to historical research and analysis.
Don't get me wrong. It would be different if the first hand accounts necessarily conflicted with Whigham's; for example if Hugh Wilson had written that he and his committee came up with the hole concepts and locations. BUT WILSON NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM. And no one else who was there did either. And, while they do not specifically address whether he planned the holes and their locations, all those who were there acknowledge that CBM was involved, and nothing they wrote must be read to contradict what Whigham wrote.
Imagine if Mike could go back in time and talk to Whigham . . .
MC: "So you say you know what happened . . .?"
HJW: "Yes, I was right there the entire time and I saw the whole thing. What happened is that CBM . . . ."
MC: "Stop right there, buster. Don't say another word. I don't believe you. CBM didn't do a thing. Word on the street has always been that HW and the other King's of the Universe at Merion did it all."
HJW: "Really? Did HW really claim that they planned the course themselves? And that CBM had nothing to do with it?"
MC: "Well . . . No. Not exactly. HW did go on about how CBM taught him to fit the correct principles of the great holes onto Merion's site. But he didn't mean it. He was just being humble and polite. I figure all they did was sit through a boring slide show of drawings CBM's trip, then listen to him drone on about about his course."
HJW: "But HW was telling the same thing I am telling you- "
MC: "Hah. I don't need your mumbo-jumbo. I don't care if you were there, what you are saying is FALSE. Unless someone else there said exactly the same thing in clear and unambiguous language, then your statement is FALSE.
HJW: But HW wrote . . .
MC: Not the way I read it.
HJW: How about what AF wrote after talking to HW?
MC: I read it differently. Besides, neither HW or AF couldv't have meant that because it didn't happen that way.
HJW: But I was there. It did happen that way.
MC: (With hands over ears) Blahblahblah.Im.not.listening.blah.blah.blah. . . "_______________________________
Patrick,
I was thinking of Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers, but it is sort of a contemporary take on the old Dan and Jane bit.