[Tom MacWood]

Mike,

I don't care because I think its casaul writing (and/or reading of writing and writing what was read) and I do not think the speakers voice change really means a damn thing in terms of what was said in that document, especially as regarding the preparation of many plans by the committee, the trip to NGLA, and the preparation of five more on return.

I do think it matters when you consider the person giving the report was a trained journalist, and former editor. We also have other reports he gave; all are well written and as clear as a bell. You add the transcribers checkered background...

I do understand that poor graphics, presentation, or english can often affect human perception of content.  But, I also understand and believe that those making a big issue of the periphery inconsistencies while ignoring the main content are doing it either to hold on to their points, or just to argue endlessly, or both.  And that means you!

It says the committee routed the golf course and that CBM helped a lot.  In your terms, how hard is THAT to understand and what does a bit of poor grammar really have to do with it?

That seems pretty cut and dried. If that is what it clearly says why then all the mystery and the redacting of sections?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Yes, exactly. And based on my idea that the simplest ideas and interpretations are usually correct.  And that, once again, anyone who argues endlessly that a more sinister, complicated interpretation that doesn't fit with any other writings, unless they are only decipherable by certain someones, and others must be told what they REALLY mean, are far less likely to be correct.

That said, you might still be entirely right, but I believe the chances of that are about 0.0000000001%.  Again, its that simple.

Tom,

I will add you to this last part, but its aimed at David, too - you have absolutely no clue (and niether do I) why Leslie, or whoever, wrote and said exactly what they said.  If you want to continue to argue that the train stopped in Philly, so Barker had to have routed MCC, go ahead.  I await more info from you saying that, rather than you "taking liberties" in telling me what simple english means.

You and David have both said we need to take the totality of all the documents to make a decsion.  I have and simply come to a different conclusion than you.  If I am later proven wrong, I will cheerfully admit it.  Like you, I am fascinated, for God knows what reason, but await some new REAL information, rather than the tired old arguments about what you and David think the writings really mean, when to me, they mean pretty much what they seem to mean.

[TEPaul]

"No explanation has been given as to why TEPaul recently changed THEY to WE, or even what the correction verions is?

Which is it?    Did THEY go or did WE go . . ?

Do you know?

Do you care?

If not why not? ?


David Moriarty:

Who are you addressing that to---Mike Cirba?

If so I have no idea what he knows or thinks about "they" or "we." I have no idea if he cares and I have no idea if he doesn't care why he doesn't care. Maybe he looked at that report somewhere. I don't know about that. Does he have a copy of it with him? I have no idea. I know what it says because I have it and I don't remember mentioning "they" one time and "we" another. If I did that then you're going to need to show me where I said it one way one time and another way another time. I think you're the one who just said I said "they" one time and "we" another time. As I said I counted up about 5-7 "they" in that report about 2 "we" and about 2 "our."

What are you making such a big deal out of it for? Are you going to say if a "they" is used somewhere in that report instead of a "we" or vice versa then that is conclusive proof that Wilson didn't do something or other because the grammatical structure of the report makes no sense to you?

If that's what you are after and are going to try to do again then I for one am definitely not interested in facilitating that nonsense for you or with you.

If you want to know how it seems the committees and their structures worked at MCC back then (very much like Merion GC still does today) as well as what some of those committees "ad hoc" and "permanent" or "standing" committees were called or who was on them and how the reported I'd be happy to try to explain it to you if we all don't have to be subjected to more of your caterwauling if I do try to explain it to you.

On the other hand, if you don't want me to try to explain it to you because you keep screaming I don't get anything right or it doesn't make sense to you then---NO PROBLEM at all---I'm more than happy to not try to explain a thing to you again and I would recommend to you as everyone else seems to be doing to just go to Merion and establish your own relationship with them as I have done over the years.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I will add you to this last part, but its aimed at David, too - you have absolutely no clue (and niether do I) why Leslie, or whoever, wrote and said exactly what they said.  If you want to continue to argue that the train stopped in Philly, so Barker had to have routed MCC, go ahead.  I await more info from you saying that, rather than you "taking liberties" in telling me what simple english means.

Not only don't I know why Lesley wrote what he wrote, I have no idea what he wrote. Unlike the other documents that have been shared for everyone to review, TEP and Wayno are keeping this one under wraps. I have argued that Barker travelled through Philly twice in December 1910. I never once said he got off the train. The fact that it was announced he had been hired to design the course on 11/24 and announced he would be staking out several courses in December should be considered when deciding if it is plausible he got off the train or not. The difference is TEP said definitively that many courses were laid out in the Winter of 1911...that is not what Lesley wrote, and IMO that is taking liberties.

You and David have both said we need to take the totality of all the documents to make a decsion.  I have and simply come to a different conclusion than you.  If I am later proven wrong, I will cheerfully admit it.  Like you, I am fascinated, for God knows what reason, but await some new REAL information, rather than the tired old arguments about what you and David think the writings really mean, when to me, they mean pretty much what they seem to mean.

Obviously you are entitled to your own conclusions, but you have to admit some of your conclusions (and mine too) have been partially based on wrong information.

You never did answer the question why TEP would redact portions of the April report if it its meaning is so straightforward.

[TEPaul]

"I do think it matters when you consider the person giving the report was a trained journalist, and former editor. We also have other reports he gave; all are well written and as clear as a bell. You add the transcribers checkered background..."


Tom:

I'm not too sure, never have been, why you can't understand in the case of Lesley reading that report to the board and that report he read being transcribed word for word by Sayres into the minutes is not a report written by Lesley, it's a report by Wilson that was read to the board by Lesley. If Lesley wrote that report himself he would've had to interview Wilson about what his committee had been doing for the last several months and then written a report himself from his interview with Wilson to deliver to the board.

That's just not the way they did it at MCC back in 1910 and 1911. It was the same with two of Cuylers long letters to President Evans. The actual letters were read to the board and Sayres actually transcribed the exact wording of those letters into the minutes. It was the same with the Wilson report. You probably wonder why Wilson just didn't come to the board meeting and deliver it himself but I've already explained that to you a number of times and why it was not that way at MCC. I've spoken to Merion about this kind of thing and they (people on the board and committees) say this is the way the club has always been. My own club is just the same way.

There's probably a really practical reason it was done that way back then that people like you never even thought about and that was back then they had no copying machines and the only way to make a copy was with carbon paper but only if the person writing the letter or report thought a copy was needed (Thank God P&O realized that with the practically 1,000 letter they wrote to the Wilson brothers or today we would only have half the correspondence---eg the Wilson letters coming to P&O. Most of the time they obviously didn't think they needed a copy as the use was considered to be one time or one way---eg such as a one time report to a board meeting or a letter sent to just one person.

How do I even know these kinds of things? Because in some of these correspondences such as the Cuyler's letters to Evans, Cuylers actually mentions right in the letters to Evans to please return the letters he's included from Connell to Evans and Evans to Connell and even his (Cuyler's letter to Evans) because it and they are the only copies there are.

This is why all these things were transcribed by Sayres right into the meeting minutes. I've done the minutes for my club's green committee for 10-15 years and when I need to read or reference something and make it part of the meeting minutes I simply say: "see attached copy" because I just go up to the office in the club and get as many copies as I need and attach them to the meeting minutes of which each green committee person gets a copy or a set.

Back in 1910 and 1911 they didn't do it that way because they couldn't!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
If it was a report written by Wilson, and read by Lesley, wouldn't you think Wilson or his committee would be mentioned? For example the site committee is mentioned in both the July, 1910 and November 1910 minutes.

Are the April 19, 1911 minutes hand written?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac,

As I understand it, TEPaul may or may not have changed one word in whatever he posted so long ago from those minutes.  I DID say to DM that I think that he made a mistake on one occaision typing.  There were, after all, many we's, they's, and whatevers.  I think its quite possible to make a human mistake and not have it affect history!  As to whether Wilson would have been mentioned, I guess I believe that everyone in the room knew who was on the committee, and the phrase "committee" is a hell of a lot shorter than naming each and every one of them when the word "committee" is used.

The fact is, most old documents leave something to be desired from a distance.  As you say, no one knows why Lesley wrote it as he wrote it or spoke it. I know its fairly common, perhaps in an effort to be a summary of discussions.  Since its so common, I simply don't believe that its likely that this is the one case where they were speaking in code, or covering up, or somehow mistaken.  The chances of that are so remote, I dismiss them as unlikely.  They just are what they are and the general ideas of them are probably correct, while the nitpicking ones are probably just us building up something in our mind because we obviously (unlike those writing those reports) have too much time on our hands......

As we have gone over, I did consider the Barker train schedule theory for a while, but have concluded that one contradictory (to others) and highly subject to interpretation newspaper article plus a timing coincidence (he went through Philly on a train) simply aren't enough to convince me that the idea merits further discussion.  I mean really, can't you see that one source and a coincidence would get nowhere in serious journalism or history writing?

There are about 20,000 golf courses in the world.  Most don't get one post here and MCC gets about 20,000 posts!  As our President wants to do, maybe we should spread the wealth around a little bit!  Just my HMO (on golf architecture, not policy)

[Tom MacWood]

Tmac,

As I understand it, TEPaul may or may not have changed one word in whatever he posted so long ago from those minutes.  I DID say to DM that I think that he made a mistake on one occaision typing.  There were, after all, many we's, they's, and whatevers.  I think its quite possible to make a human mistake and not have it affect history!  As to whether Wilson would have been mentioned, I guess I believe that everyone in the room knew who was on the committee, and the phrase "committee" is a hell of a lot shorter than naming each and every one of them when the word "committee" is used.

Human error is a logical explantion if you have a transcribed copy, but he says he has a photocopy of the original document. He made the exact same error over and over again, and as a result those of us quoting him - Mike, David and myself - have made the exact same error over and over again. How do you explain that? Presumably everyone in the room knew who was on the site committee in June and Novemeber 1910 as well, when that committee was mentioned by name (incuding all the names on the committee). Did they became less formal in 1911?

The fact is, most old documents leave something to be desired from a distance.  As you say, no one knows why Lesley wrote it as he wrote it or spoke it. I know its fairly common, perhaps in an effort to be a summary of discussions.  Since its so common, I simply don't believe that its likely that this is the one case where they were speaking in code, or covering up, or somehow mistaken.  The chances of that are so remote, I dismiss them as unlikely.  They just are what they are and the general ideas of them are probably correct, while the nitpicking ones are probably just us building up something in our mind because we obviously (unlike those writing those reports) have too much time on our hands......

Who said anything about code or covering up? Don't you find it pathetic that you and I are trying to explain and analyze a document neither one of us has read?

As we have gone over, I did consider the Barker train schedule theory for a while, but have concluded that one contradictory (to others) and highly subject to interpretation newspaper article plus a timing coincidence (he went through Philly on a train) simply aren't enough to convince me that the idea merits further discussion.  I mean really, can't you see that one source and a coincidence would get nowhere in serious journalism or history writing?

Those are three sources, and those are three more than you have for Wilson. To my knoweldge Wilson's name does not even make it into the press until later in 1912, and there is no mention of him as a designer. The point is I never claimed Barker got off the train in contrast to TEP's statement that the course was routed in the Winter of 1911.

By the way Barker is the only person who is known to have produced a routing. And the only person reported as being hired to design the new golf course.

There are about 20,000 golf courses in the world.  Most don't get one post here and MCC gets about 20,000 posts!  As our President wants to do, maybe we should spread the wealth around a little bit!  Just my HMO (on golf architecture, not policy)

You still haven't given us an explanation why portions of the April 1911 report are redacted.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff, I am a bit perplexed by the tone your posts.   You'd think there was something wrong with trying to figure out what these documents say.   I'm not asking for you to tell me what you think Lesley meant.   I am asking you to tell me what you think what words appear in the minutes.   Surely we must figure out what they say before we determine what they mean, right?  

If you want to write the mistake off  as yet another innocent TEPaul mistake that is up to you.  But it does not address the question.  Does the document say WE went up to the National or THEY went up to the National?  

- TEPaul had long said that the correct transcription was THEY went up to the National.  

- Yet a few days ago, to support his argument that this was Wilson's report (not Lesley's,) TEPaul wrote that the correct transcription was:  WE went up to the National . . .

So which is it?   WE or THEY?

As to the specifics of your post . . .
- LESLEY is giving the report, on behalf of the GOLF COMMITTEE (not the Construction Committee,) or so we have been told.   Even if Lesley did not name the members of the Construction Committee don't you think he would have at least indicated that he giving a report on behalf of that sub-committee, or reading Wilson's report, or some such thing to indicate who he is talking about?
- I don't think anyone back then was speaking in code or covering anything up or mistaken.    That is why I don't think we've been given the entire truth of the transcription-- as it is it makes no sense.  
Or do you think we ought to just always assume that the pronouns refer to whomever we'd like them to?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

David,

***EDIT***

I have been asked by Wayne not to discuss the MCC Minutes in any detail on this website as is his perogative as the person who found the information and who no longer wishes to contribute to the information made available here.

Mike,

That would seem to be an extremely disengenuous answer.

Are you stating, unequivically, that Wayno has provided absolutely NO INFORMATION, intended for you to post, during this entire thread ?

While a simple yes or no answer will suffice, don't avoid answering the question.

It seems that you tend to post info supplied by Wayno when it's convenient for Wayno to make his/your point, yet, you claim immunity when questioned about issues that Wayno doesn't want revealed.

That's being intellectually dishonest.

It also forces a prudent person to wonder what Wayno is hiding ?

And, it frustrates Moriarty and MacWood in their quest for the true historical record.

Stop being a pawn, be objective and truthful.
To do otherwise is in no one's best interest.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think I've probably said this already half a dozen times but the fact remains that the person who found these documents was booted from GCA some months back and has no interest in adding value to this site, much less satisfying DM's and TM's repeated demands for information here given the history.
 . 

[Tom MacWood]

I think I've probably said this already half a dozen times but the fact remains that the person who found these documents was booted from GCA some months back and has no interest in adding value to this site, much less satisfying DM's and TM's repeated demands for information here given the history.
 .  

Mike
TEP quoted the April 1911 minutes for the first time several months after Wayne had been booted off the site. In fact it was just a couple of months ago. So obviously that is not the issue.

Why did they redact portions of the minutes when they released the info?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Just the opposite is true.

Wayne has asked me a number of times over the past several months to just stop responding to this inanity, in the belief that if Dm, TM, and you have no one to argue with you won't get the satisfaction.

Anything I've posted here was stuff Wayne gave me copies of long ago, or that I found on my own, or with or by Joe Bausch, or had already been posted here or in the public domain.

In fact, I've probably strained our friendship by continuing to respond to this asinine nonsense because to all of us, and particularly to the "historians", Merion is an abstraction.

To Wayne it's friends' family, and community.

That we would collectively permit this to go on here certainly doesn't say much good about our methods of engagement.

[DMoriarty]

I think I've probably said this already half a dozen times but the fact remains that the person who found these documents was booted from GCA some months back and has no interest in adding value to this site, much less satisfying DM's and TM's repeated demands for information here given the history.
 . 

Both you and TEPaul have been continuing to discuss this information since you posted that you were no longer going to.  It seems to be the same as when Wayne first started leaking the information on the website.

You, Wayne, and TEPaul have used and continue to use the info as you like to suit your purposes.   You refuse to verify that information, authenticate it, clarify it, or accurately convey it.   

So this has nothing to do with privacy, at least when it comes to the Clubs.  This is you guys being intellectually dishonest by trying to control the record.     If you guys were going to treat this information with respect, you needed to do that before you started using the documents for your own rhetorical gain. 

My question remains:  What was actually written in the April 19, 1911 meeting minutes?    How is it that you and Jeff think you know exactly what the meeting minutes MEAN, but neither of you can even tell me what the meeting minutes actually SAY. 


Where did you get the information about the correct date of the Cuyler letter?  And if from TEPaul, where did he get it, and why?

[TEPaul]

This "we" or "they" controversy or should I say conflagration has got to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen on this website---it only goes to show the complete depths of triviality and inconsequentialness some on this website can sink to.

As I said earlier I think I counted up the instances of "they" and "we" and "our" in that Wilson Committee report and I reported app how many times each word was used in that report.

The fact is when the visit by the committee to NGLA is mentioned in either the going to NGLA or coming back from NGLA both "they" and "we" is used. If someone on here thinks that is so grammatically incorrect or that the grammatical incorrectness is so substantial that it should be construed to mean that the entire report makes no sense at all or makes no sense as to who it refers to then I assume the grammarians can conclude that the people who went up to NGLA for that visit may not be the same people who came home from that visit.  

Matter of fact, I believe I will write a memo to Merion's board of directors and its historians and inform them that a couple of really expert golf architectural researchers AND expert grammarians on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com have now determined that the Wilson report submitted to the MCC board meeting of 4/19/1911 and perhaps the entire minutes of that board meeting are so grammatically incorrect that there is no possible way they could make any sense at all as to what any of those men from Merion were talking about or doing in the first half of 1911 and therefore those meeting minutes AND that Wilson Report read into that meeting should be now and forevermore expunged from Merion's historical record.

Some of you people truly are dumb ducks and silly rabbits and thank God most all the men of Merion today including the ones that run the place that I know really do have a great sense of humor. You should see some of them laugh about this issue on this website! The other day the subject came up with two of them at my club and as soon as it did, one burst out laughing and said hold on let me go get a drink, this has got to be another good one!!




"Both you and TEPaul have been continuing to discuss this information since you posted that you were no longer going to."



Well, I sure know how you can stop that---just stop asking me questions about what anythng from Merion says and find out for yourself. But if you don't choose that route I sure know how I can fix my discussing anything at all on this issue on this website.

[DMoriarty]

Anyone else notice that every time TEPaul rambles on about how many we's and they's there are he never bothers to explain which of his transcriptions is correct?

THEY went up to the National?
WE went up to the National?

And what to the words of the minutes say about who laid out many different courses on the new land? 

I guess TEPaul must have no idea, or else he cannot figure out how to present the words in a manner that supports his case.  Otherwise why the distractions?

[TEPaul]

"Human error is a logical explantion if you have a transcribed copy, but he says he has a photocopy of the original document. He made the exact same error over and over again, and as a result those of us quoting him - Mike, David and myself - have made the exact same error over and over again. How do you explain that?"



Tom

When you refer to human error and someone making the same error over and over again are you referring to me or someone else? If you are referring to me I wish you would stop just mentioning it and just show me and this website where I made an error over and over again. Don't forget, everything that has been said on this website is in the back pages. Don't just tell me actually SHOW ME where I made some error over and over again! Go find it and put it on a post and SHOW ME the error I made over and over if it is me you're referring to.

My bet is that you will avoid this as you always do when you say things on here like that!  

[TEPaul]

"Anyone else notice that every time TEPaul rambles on about how many we's and they's there are he never bothers to explain which of his transcriptions is correct?"


I'd say the very same thing to you I just did to Tom MacWood. Don't just mention that I made different transcriptions, you need to actually show me and the others on here where I made different transcriptions. Do that and I will address it if it is true but I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I did that so again don't JUST mention it SHOW THEM to me. Can you do that and if you don't what does that say?

[DMoriarty]

. . .

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course 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......

That's all that's mentioned about plans and data (the words sketches and drawings are not used) . . . .

I realize Lesley was not on Wilson's committee. That's why it would be pretty odd if Lesley authored that report and said "we" went up to NGLA. Why would Lesley go to NGLA if he wasn't on Wilson's committee?

[TEPaul]

That's it?? That's the extent of me recanting or doctoring documents or being inconsistent or whatever the latest thing you're labeling me with or accusing me of??

Amazing!

But what if that report said "they" went up to NGLA and then later in the report said when "we" returned from NGLA?

Would that indicate to you expert architectural historians and expert grammarians that it was different people who went to NGLA from the ones who returned from NGLA or would you say that indicates the entire report makes no sense at all due to improper grammar and consequently should never be considered as reliable documentary evidence in what happened in the winter of 1911 at Merion and who did it?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul asked for facts and was provided facts.  

So here he goes with the name calling and insults.  

Yet still no explanation as to why he had been writing that THEY went up to the  National.
Then when it suits his argument (claiming the report is in Wilson's voice) he simply changes it to WE went up to the National.  Surely just another innocent mistake, like accidentally dropping the part about the lay out of Merion East out of the Alan Wilson report.   But notice how all the innocent mistakes seem to fit in well with his position?  If only my mistakes were always in my favor.  

Apparently TEPaul doesn't find this sort of change to be any big deal.  He even mocks me for bringing it up.  Never mind that the real issue is WHO did WHAT, he'll simply substitute in whatever word suits his argument.

We still have no clarification.   Without a complete and accurate transcription, we never will.

I'm not interested in hypotheticals about what it means if . . .   I just want Wayne, TEPaul, and Mike to authenticate their claims against me so I can verify them and respond.  

[TEPaul]

"So here he goes with the name calling and insults."


I'm sorry, I think I removed everything from that last post that could be construed as name calling or insulting. Unfortunately jokes about lawyers are all too common in America if not the entire world. But I removed it just in case someone other than you constued it as name calling or an insult.

But as to the "we" and "they" seemingly used interchangeably in the Wilson report I'm not sure I've ever understood the point of the distinction, your point of the distinction. What is your point about that? Even though some of us Ivy League guys (like the Merion guys) thought we were getting a first class education in liberal arts including the English language, I guess we must not have according to modern thinking. Oh well, one lives and learns! 

[DMoriarty]

The point is that without the entire and accurate transcript we cannot begin determine who did what and when.    You obviously are withholding portions, and my guess is we can make sense of it if we have all the portions accurately.  

Is there truly no mention of Wilson or his committee in the entire report?  If not then on what basis do you conclude it was his report?   Surely not from the pronouns as you have presented them?

And what about the parts you are withholding?

[TEPaul]

"The point is that without the entire and accurate transcript we cannot begin determine who did what and when.    You obviously are withholding portions, and my guess is we can make sense of it if we have all the portions accurately.





I'm not withholding anything, never have, and if you or anyone else on here doesn't believe it then you surely are free to establish your own relationship with Merion and find out for yourself.

If for some reason you have not been or feel you are not able to do that, then perhaps you should explain to all of us on here why that is. I think the time has come for you to stop treating people like Wayne Morrison and me and even Mike Cirba as you investigators and research assistants as you always have on these threads. Stop asking us a thousand questions and just go find the answers for yourself as we have. The very same thing and suggestion goes for MacWood.

Just go do it for yourself and form your own opinions with the documentary evidence we have. None of us feel we owe you a damn thing, David Moriarty and none of us feel we have any responsibilty whatsoever to you to bail you out of an incredibly semi-researched massively irresponsible and revisionist essay like the one you put on here.

You hoisted yourself on your own damn petard and you can damn well figure out for yourself how to deal with it hereinafter!

Just go to Merion and establish a relationship with them if you can as a few of us have and that you will find. Is there any possible reason that you can't tell this website why you can't do that?

[JESII]

David,

I agree with you, and have told Tom Paul this, that if they are going to argue point by point on any actual source information they should reveal what they are using as evidence, or else not refer to it at all and just argue logic...but I don't get to make that call and you're not exactly making any headway with the current tract of repeating your request to have the material put on here, are you?

On a related note, the way you interpreted the words of Alan Wilson as comparing and contrasting Hugh Wilson's role in the process ONLY against the rest of the committee and not at all against M&W "because he had already mentioned them and then put them aside" is not exactly an objective view...You and Tom Macwood have both demonstated an ability to read paragraphs by these guys as saying things I couldn't dream of. If I were arguing with you over some specific point I don't think I would give you the material either because what could I have to gain? Your interpretations are not certain fact, they are just your interpretations and are as wildly one sided as you believe Tom and Mike's are in the other direction...

Probably was not helpful, but seeing you continue to ask for something you are not going to get is cause for concern. I would think of a different strategy to get what you want.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()