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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Meroin
« Reply #3375 on: July 24, 2009, 07:02:59 PM »
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."


THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently.   It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.


Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??!?!?!?!?!?

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans?!?!?!?!?!?!?  



Wayne Morrison found the documents.

He wants nothing to do with this website, nor is he going to provide additional information here.   He got kicked off and he has no interest in what David and/or MacWood think or want.

He has asked Tom Paul and I NOT to provide any information here as is his right.


We have what we have and that is all that will be forthcoming.

If anyone wants to talk about that evidence or answer the obvious questions I ask above, then let's do it.

The rest...the charges...the rest...is bullshit and is simply seeking to avoid dealing with the FACT that there is ZERO evidence left that hasn't been disproven of anyone other than Hugh WIlson and Committee designing Merion with CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham as advisors.  


Mike
Thank you for giving us the third or fourth version of a snippet allegedly from the April report. I'm sure there will be a fifth and sixth version sometime in the near future. Your quote is worthless and your credibility is non existent. When you edit transcriptions to help support your case, redact large portions of reports and refuse to share original documents how do you think you are perceived in the eyes of legitimate historians? I've been in contact with a number of historians and history professors at local universities, and they are blown away by the behavior - the term most often used is outrageous.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 07:04:37 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3376 on: July 24, 2009, 07:08:37 PM »
Sheesh, Tom....what did I type wrong this time?

Please show me what I did wrong because I haven't the slightest idea what I did wrong?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 11:00:52 PM by EnoughsEnuff »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Meroin
« Reply #3377 on: July 24, 2009, 07:43:14 PM »
Sheesh, Ton....what did I type wrong this time?

Please show me what I did wrong because I haven't the slightest idea what I did wrong?

Seriously?  What you have done wrong and continue to do wrong is that you are claiming facts but offering no proof.  As TomM said, you have zero credibility to tell us what the documents actually say, but even if you had any credibility left, I'd still insist on viewing the actual source material.    

Look above where you tell me "Construct any strawmen you wish, but this is what the minutes say."  Well TEPaul reported it differently, and I am not interested in you guys hashing it out.  I am interested in viewing, verifying, and vetting the source material for myself.  You guys have garbled it so badly your representations mean nothing.  Any of your claims of "fact" without proof of "fact" are completely unproductive and intellectually suspect.  There is no reason to hide anything if you are telling the truth and are at all confident in your interpretations.  

Look at John Moore's questions above.  

- Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents?
- If not, why not?  On that same idea, how, if everyone is reading from the same primary source documents, do 2 groups of people manage to come up with nearly polar opposite conclusions as to what happened?
- Are these primary documents available for public viewing?
- If not, why have they not been published in some fashion so that the active observer might be able to take a look at the primary material for himself?


Why do you suppose he is asking those questions?    Do you really not understand what you have done wrong?
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)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3378 on: July 24, 2009, 07:48:02 PM »
David or Tom MacWood,

I am not Tom or Wayne.

Please show me where I have presented multiple versions of the MCC Minutes.

Tom...you made the charge...what are you talking about?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion
« Reply #3379 on: July 24, 2009, 07:57:16 PM »
Come on Mike!  The problem is that you guys are ALL presenting this stuff without any proof whatsoever.   It is outrageous and has turned this website into a complete circus that is not only embarrassing for us, but must be embarrassing for Merion.  And all because WAYNE MORRISON decided he would try to have it both ways by using Merion's documents for his rhetorical gain while at the same time refusing to allow them to be viewed, vetted, or verified.    You and Tom have served as his mouthpieces and that puts you right there with him.   

And Mike, please correct the spelling of the title of this thread.  We all look foolish enough without you refusing to correct the error. 
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)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3380 on: July 24, 2009, 08:36:08 PM »
David,

You state, "I am interested in viewing, verifying, and vetting the source material for myself..."

As the source material is in Merion's possession you HAVE to go to them for it. If you feel that you cannot, then you MUST trust that someone is giving you the correct information. If you can't trust anyone to do this you are out of options.

You can only do one or the other at this point... and that's a tough position to be in.

 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Meroin
« Reply #3381 on: July 24, 2009, 08:46:55 PM »
David,

You state, "I am interested in viewing, verifying, and vetting the source material for myself..."

As the source material is in Merion's possession you HAVE to go to them for it. If you feel that you cannot, then you MUST trust that someone is giving you the correct information. If you can't trust anyone to do this you are out of options.

You can only do one or the other at this point... and that's a tough position to be in.

This is a false choice.  I don't have to trust these guys even if I can't get the information.   What I can do is continue to point out how Wayne Morrison and his two mouthpieces have misused and abused the historical record for their own rhetorical gain, and I can continue to demand that they come clean with the documents and allow us to vet their claims.    Anyone as interested in accurate historical research as you are ought to be right there with me.   What has happened here for the past year is preposterous and we all ought to cry it down.  These guys have made a mockery of the website and of Merion's historical record.   No one ought to get a free pass to dictate to us their version of the "truth" without backing up their claims with facts.  
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)

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Meroin
« Reply #3382 on: July 24, 2009, 08:52:00 PM »
David,

Can we just let it be that you don't trust them, without it having to be a part of every post? I understand, and have understood for a long, long time that you don't trust them.

There's 1500 or so participants here. Most have a reasonable sense of memory and don't need the constant reminder. And, before any of the other combatants join in resounding agreement, we know how you feel as well. We've heard it. For 100 pages now.

Thanks for your understanding.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3383 on: July 24, 2009, 09:02:50 PM »
David and Tom MacWood,

Again. Please show me where I've misrepresented the MCC Minutes.

You made the charge which I take very seriously.

Please back it up or retract it.

John Moore II

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3384 on: July 24, 2009, 09:19:19 PM »
David and Tom MacWood,

Again. Please show me where I've misrepresented the MCC Minutes.

You made the charge which I take very seriously.

Please back it up or retract it.

Mike, They, nor any of us, know if you misrepresented the MCC Minutes or not. If they are accusing you blatantly of that, they are in the wrong. But to expect all of us, your peers, to simply take you at your word that what you are saying is pure truth is stretching a bit. A friend of mine is about to have two books about the Civil War in publication. If he tried to present material such as has been presented here, saying this is what it says, but you can have no access to the source material, he would never be put into publication and would be laughed at by his writer peers. Source material must be cited specifically and it needs to be accessible, its as simple as that. So long as we are hiding material from each other, then everyone involved is going to severely lack credibility.

TEPaul

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3385 on: July 24, 2009, 09:22:13 PM »
"Do all involved in the research not have access to the same primary source documents? If not, why not?

NO.  Because so far only Wayne Morrison has had access to the old meeting minute books from MCC, and he has chosen to use that material to selectively and piecemeal to support his side of the argument and to attack others, but he has not allowed that material to be viewed, verified, or vetted.   Since Wayne no longer participates, he has periodically provided copies of this source material to TEPaul and Mike Cirba, so they could continue the charade.   Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike Cirba have brought forward snippets and passages and have claimed that they are exact transcriptions of the source material, but over time their supposed exact transcriptions have changed substantively, thus indicating that, intentionally or not, they are misrepresenting the content of the source material."



John K. Moore:

That's Moriarty's story; obviously our story here, at least 2-3 of us here who have access to this material is substantially different. We feel MacWood first and then very much Moriarty came at this subject with a really adverserial attitude and approach to this subject with us. Particularly Moriarty showed no willingness whatsoever to cooperate with Merion or anyone here in Philadephia about what he was intending to produce and say about the architect or the architectural history of Merion at this particular time (1910-1911). The proof of that is he categorically refused to let us see or even be aware of what he intended to say but instead sent review copies to the likes of MacWood and Mucci and perhaps Nacarrato. Do they have the research material, the knowledge or the detailed background on Merion we do and Merion does? ;)

So that is the way it began. When his essay came out it was lightly researched regarding Merion's own records, meeting minutes etc since he decided not to establish a working relationship with Merion BEFORE he began his essay. Consequently, we (and Merion) strenuously criticized the accuracy of the assumptions, premises and conclusions of his essay and we still do----actually even more so then ever given what we have uncovered from MCC since his essay.

Due to those criticisims he demanded access to all Merion's and MCC material (some private that had never seen public dissemination) so that he could "vet" our criticisms of his essay. He even tried to suggest that this is only the process of "civil discourse" or whatever! ;) What happened to the "civil discourse" of a working relationship with the club and subject and those who really know it BEFOREHAND?  ??? ::)

For some odd reason he seemed to think this is how this overall process should work. Some of us disagree with that maintaining he should have gone to Merion and MCC FIRST and established a working relationship with them as we have rather than make us act as his research assistants to do his research collection for him and AFTER the fact (of his essay).

Had Moriarty established a working research and review process with Merion and us first instead of the adverserial approach he took with us and Merion I very much doubt any of this would have ever happened. But then again, some of us and perhaps Merion too do not really believe he did any of this out of an interest to understand Merion. We think he, like MacWood before him, did it only to try to embarrass us and Philadelphia golf architectural history by trying to find some mistakes in the architectural histories of our most famous clubs and some of their attributed architects. This goes back a long way. MacWood came at the subject of PV and Crump's suicide the very same way before all this Merion stuff. Never once did he contact PV about what he was writing about. Never once did he try to work with anyone who knew more about PV when he started his investigation and continued on with it,

I actually had the rather thankless task of supplying MacWood with PV mayor John Ott's email address just before the Crump suicide In My Opinion piece was put on this website. PV who knew about those rumors for years never knew MacWood's essay was coming. Call me old fashioned or whatever but I happen to think that kind of approach really lacks etiquette, even research and reporting Etiquette and ethics and good old fashioned manners and commonsense! MacWood actually even has a stated reason for this kind of approach which is he believes that most all these clubs tend to lie about their architects and architectural histories by knowingly heroifying or iconizing them!

My old friend John Ott (now deceased) had the rather sad job of taking the email download of MacWood's essay down to the clubhouse after which a board meeting was called to report it---the club clearly never wanted to dredge up that sad event of how Crump died even if they knew of it for years---to them he just died very suddenly and he was gone---why the sordid details since his family clearly covered up the circumstances of how he died?

You heard Moriarty's story, John K. Moore, and the foregoing is our story. If one wants all the research material, some of which had never seen public dissemination and is private, one needs to do a bit more than just rudely and insultingly demanding AFTER the fact of a unsubstantiated and highly revisionistic essay like Moriarty's "The Missing Faces of Merion."  

John Moore II

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3386 on: July 24, 2009, 09:35:01 PM »
Tom-Whether he went about it in the right way or not is somewhat moot at this point. That essay was published 16 months ago or so. There are primary sources scanned and published all through these threads. Why not scan and publish the records you have available? If the club has proof that Moriarty is passing off crap level research as high quality, then why not prove it once and for all and allow this material to be published? Frankly, these pissing contests is running down the reputation of the clubas far as architecture is concerned.

TEPaul

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3387 on: July 24, 2009, 09:47:22 PM »
"Tom-Whether he went about it in the right way or not is somewhat moot at this point."

John K:

It may be moot to you or Moriarty and MacWood but it's not moot to some of us or to Merion.

Furthermore, we did provide really valid material that had never been seen before and it has been treated on this website about as shabbily by MacWood and Moriarty as Moriarty treated what he had about Merion's history IN THE FIRST PLACE (which wasn't enough to produce an essay).

Most commonsensical and logical minds and golf clubs are not willing to see their histories treated by the kind of tortured logic and the kind of preconceived agendas of people like that.

People like Moriarty or MacWood seem to think they have some constitutional right to information even after the approch they used in the first place. Others just don't see it that way. Unfortunately for the likes of the MacWoods and Moriartys or no more than the Internet world is they aren't the ones who have the access to information in the first place.

John, you think these kinds of pissing contests are running down the reputations of the clubs as far as architecture is concerned?? Well, if that's true, all I can say is the clubs probably really do give a whole lot less of a shit about that then some of the people on this website do!

Moriarty has continuously tried to make this entire issue into nothing more than information dissemination and I have continuously tried to point out that is just not all there is to it. If that's the way this website and its participants want to make it then I feel they still have something pretty important to learn.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 09:58:08 PM by TEPaul »

John Moore II

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3388 on: July 24, 2009, 09:52:47 PM »
Tom, I don't think they have some right to see the information, but its the club that is having its history dragged through the mud. If they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt that Moriarty and Macwood are full of shit, then why not do it? Why not publish the records? I'd bet that among people who study and enjoy reading about golf course architecture it would be a great seller; same among landscape architecture and golf course architecture students, it would make a great case study for collaborative efforts in design. Again, if the club has records that can prove M&M are fully wrong, as you, Mike, et al., have argued for a very long time, why not show them and end this?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3389 on: July 24, 2009, 09:56:41 PM »

Mike
Thank you for giving us the third or fourth version of a snippet allegedly from the April report. I'm sure there will be a fifth and sixth version sometime in the near future. Your quote is worthless and your credibility is non existent. When you edit transcriptions to help support your case, redact large portions of reports and refuse to share original documents how do you think you are perceived in the eyes of legitimate historians? - Tom MacWood


John K. Moore,

I do NOT have the MCC Minutes.

I have seen them...twice.

The first time was well over a year ago at Merion, and the second time with Joe Bausch was back in March.

As pieces of them were posted here at times, I copied them to my own file, which I've periodically posted here second-hand as discussion points.

What I've seen posted here is accurately representative of what I saw originally.


What Tom MacWood accused me of is ALTERING what Ive presented here prior, and when he couldn't find any evidence of that, David changed the subject to how we're all altering things....more diversion, deflection, and division.   Par for the course.


So, Tom MacWood and/or David...

We KNOW you guiys save everything.

We KNOW you guys know how to cut and paste.

If I posted something from the minutes differently this time than from previous times as you've just accused me of...

Put up or shut the fuck up.

John Moore II

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3390 on: July 24, 2009, 10:07:51 PM »
Mike-Then if you and others have seen them, how about we try to work constructively in order to get these records out into the public eye? I have a good friend that runs a publishing company in Gettysburg. I'm sure he'd be happy to run some print-on-demand copies of these works, for a fee of course. These pissing contests aren't going to solve anything. Its obvious you think just about everything Moriarty and Macwood type is a bunch of lies and its equally obvious they think the same about nearly everything you and Tom type. But if you have the proof to back you up, lets see the original copies of it all; that way, if correct, you, Tom, Wayne and everyone else with an interest in the matter can know for certain who is correct. And if proven correct, you can also call all of them idiots right out in public because you have certain proof. Lets all work to get these primary sources released to the public view.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3391 on: July 24, 2009, 10:30:59 PM »
John,

I wish it were that simple.   

The person who found the minutes was booted from GCA many months ago and has absolutely no interest in adding value to this website by providing source material.   Frankly, he couldn't care less what David or Tom MacWood think or what they demand he provide and given the circumstances, I can't say I blame him.

Unfortunately, that creates a situation that I warned David about many months ago, which is simply that he was at a disadvantage because some of us had seen the minutes and he had not.   I told him that spending more time here arguing about this stuff was going to be non-productive, and ultimately a dead-end.

So, here we sit.

At this point, we can either try to discuss the meaning of what has been produced to date, or we can leave it alone, because I can tell you without doubt that nothing more will be forthcoming here....not because it in any way is disadvantageous to the case of Hugh Wilson as architect, but because too much bad blood has flowed here and I can't imagine anyone at Merion wanting to help anyone on this website with any of this any longer.

Could you?


John Moore II

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3392 on: July 24, 2009, 10:39:14 PM »
Yes, if I were at the club, I'd publish everything I had and put the whole matter to rest. If they have material that can show who is correct then they aught to show it; if only to prove the party who is wrong that they are for certain wrong. That is the only way there will be resolution, when all the facts are known to everyone. And Wayne doesn't need to add value to the website; add value to the study of architectural history. Like I said, publish the Minutes, publish all the letters, newspaper articles and everything else in a huge primary source compilation. I think this whole situation would make a great case study for architectural students; they could get much of that here, certainly, but they'd have to wade through all the name calling and such to get to the legit material.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3393 on: July 24, 2009, 10:45:18 PM »
John,

My understanding is that the goals for the source information from MCC is 1) For any relevant bits to be ultimately part of the Merion Golf Club Historical Archive, and 2) For those same bits to be part of the book Wayne and Tom are working on about William Flynn.

Tom can perhaps correct me on that matter, but that is my understanding of things.   


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Meroin
« Reply #3394 on: July 24, 2009, 10:46:34 PM »
Why add value to a website when you can add value to a book?

 :)
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

John Moore II

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3395 on: July 24, 2009, 10:49:33 PM »
Well, I think many look forward to the book coming out. Is the Historical Archive to be somewhat accessible to the public; likely not public library accessible, but at least accessible to the point one could write a letter and obtain access to the documents?

(and on another note, I'm stoked about having the 3500th reply to this topic)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3396 on: July 24, 2009, 10:57:57 PM »
John,

I'm about as upper crust as the hard to remove stuff stuck to the bottom of the oven.

However, I've been in the Merion Historical Archives and it's been an honor and a privilege.

I think there is something to be said for trying to do these things in a personal way, and not by remote control.

It reminds me of Pine Valley, in that if it's obvious you love golf and golf courses, and have the respect and appreciation, surprising things do happen because that's all anyone there really cares about.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 11:00:00 PM by EnoughsEnuff »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3397 on: July 24, 2009, 11:02:40 PM »

All attempts towards productive end such as looking at land aquisition timelines and where the 117 acres may have been have been effectively subverted so now even guys like Bryan Izatt and Jim Sullivan have wisely skipped town.

That's YOUR predisposed conclusion.

Let Jim Sullivan and Bryan Izatt speak for themselves.


So, since there are no further attempts to actually discuss real evidence, or actually even discuss what guys like Tilly and "Far and Sure" wrote, last one out of this room please shut out the lights...

Mike, for a guy who wants to end this thread you sure post and add to it quite frequently.

David Moriarty and Tom MacWood have made reasonable, "prudent man" requests.
What are you so afraid of finding out ?



TEPaul

Re: Meroin
« Reply #3398 on: July 24, 2009, 11:04:31 PM »
"Well, I think many look forward to the book coming out. Is the Historical Archive to be somewhat accessible to the public; likely not public library accessible, but at least accessible to the point one could write a letter and obtain access to the documents?"







John K:

That's a very good question. And by that I mean it is a VERY good question. I don't really feel that Merion pays that much attention to the details of threads like this on here but I believe they certainly to pay attention to the entire drift of this "thing" on Golfclubatlas.com. As a consequence, I feel a lot of people, including Merion have to rethink all this. This website and these two people have certainly not made it any easier for Merion to provide access to their information but perhaps in some ironic way this entire adventure will force things to happen. I just hope it won't be a negative reaction from the clubs but if that's the way it's going to be, I, personally, am going to lay the reason for it at the doorstep of the likes of MacWood and Moriarty.

On the other hand, I think we all have to realize we are into a whole different deal and a different world these days with the INTERNET and its information collection, dissemination and analysis, and as I said to Dan Hermann today privately we are all going to have to learn and adjust to it somehow.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Meroin
« Reply #3399 on: July 24, 2009, 11:08:00 PM »
TE-Wayne-Mike

Isn't the he truth the truth? Please explain to me again why you choose to quote redacted documents instead of releasing a copy of the complete original. What are you afraid of?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back