next »

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

You mentioned this before on here as you just did above. I didn't keep that Francis letter to myself; I mentioned it on here within a day of finding it at the USGA Green Section last year. Perhaps you weren't able to read my post just above before your most recent one. My post just above yours this morning explains that Wayne and I did not have that Francis letter of April 11, 1912 to Russell Oakley until I went back up to the USGA Green Section a year ago and found it. Hope that helps you understand the research we did and what we were researching on at the time 5-6 years----eg FLYNN!!

TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us.

Merion is a major focus of that book because it played such an important role in his career. A large portion of the book is devoted to Merion, including the development of Merion-East. One of the unknown mysteries regarding Flynn's career was when and how he came to Merion. Would you have us believe you did not search thoroughly through those letters for clues? The first letter of the series is dated 2/1/1911 and mentioned CB Macdonald prominently. Would you have us believe you would brush over that? As you continue through those letters you would find further mention of CBM, including a copy of a letter from CBM. That would be of no interest? And then the letter from Richard Francis announcing Wilson is abroad. You quote RS Francis in your book and he's metioned prominently in Merion's history book. That would not be of any interest either?

Your explanation does not fly.

Your last post is just another of many many examples of how easily you seem to get things mixed up about Merion and what Wayne and I were doing or not doing at any particular time.

You have always said that all we or Merion is trying to do here is protect a "legend" or a "Myth." You've said the very same things about us with Crump and Pine Valley and about me and Leeds and Myopia. Apparently this idea of yours led you to label us here "The Philadelphia Syndrome" that suggested we are conducting some kind of conspiracy here to protect the legends of our own local architects and to minimize the contributions of outside architects.

I think everyone accepts by now that is all you do. Last year you were upset by my essay on the golf architecure of the 1890s becasue it did not jive with your simple understanding derived from Cornish & Whitten.

I think we have shown throughout all the years of you labelling us that way and suggesting such a thing that there is absolutely no factual or historically accurate reason or evidence that we have ever done such a thing. In your attempts to suggest other architects were largely responsible for the things attributed to the likes of Wilson, Crump and Leeds, the best you have done is to imply there is some article in Boston, that you constantly refused to produce that says Willie Campbell designed Myopia or that HH Barker must have stopped at Merion and designed the East course in a day in early Dec, 1912 simply because you found he took a train trip from New York to Georgia at that time.

I told you what I found on Campbell and Myopia, and I told you where you could find the articles. If you are too lazy or incompetent to follow up whose fault is that? I have no idea if Barker stopped at Merion in the winter of 1910. I simply made the point he would have travelled through Philadelphia (twice) during the time in question. And combined with the fact he had just been annouced as the designer of Merion and the other report about him laying out new courses its worth considering.

Tom, I have no desire or interest in ever trying to convince you how foolish these things you say are----my only interest is that all others see how foolish the things you have said and say are and in that I feel, at this point, I have pretty much totally succeeded.

The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were; the jury is still out on Merion. The fact that you are doing everything in your power to keep the original documents hidden does not bode well for you.

[Tom MacWood]

Again, getting you and Moriarty to admit and acknowledge that is no longer my goal. My only goal is to try to get everyone else to see the truth of Merion's architectural history as well as what has happened here on this website!

TEP
Thats funny, last night you said your only goal was the following:

"My goal, my only goal actually, in this last year was simply to try to convince as many people as I possibly could that your essay is incredibly fallacious and revisionist of the architectural history of that early phase of Merion East."

You didn't mention anything about finding the truth. 

[TEPaul]

"TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us."


Tom:

Yes it did but not from that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley about Wilson being abroad. That letter also never mentioned a thing about why Wilson went abroad in 1912 or that Wilson had not been abroad before that. All it said to Oakley was Wilson "is on a hurried trip abroad." Matter of fact, before he went and after he returned Wilson himself never said a thing to P&O about why he went abroad or what he did over there. I copied that Francis letter at the USGA Green Section in maybe May/June of 2008. If it was in the copies Wayne and I made 5-6 years ago I'm not aware of it. We were writing about William Flynn primarily and he doesn't appear to have been part of what was going on there in 1910 and 1911 and that Francis letter had nothing to do with Flynn.

But you can just keep saying whatever you want about what we knew or didn't know at any particular time; it really doesn't matter to us because even if you try to act like it you have no idea what we knew or didn't know at any particular time compared to us.

But I can certainly understand why you keep saying those things on here now; after-all what is there really left for you to say at this point?

[TEPaul]

"You didn't mention anything about finding the truth."

Tom:

That's why I mentioned it this morning! I guess the fact I didn't mention it last night falls into your standard thinking that if someone didn't actually write something specific down there is no way (in your mind) it could've happened!    



"Would you have us believe you did not search thoroughly through those letters for clues?"


As I've said a number of times before to you 5-6 years ago while in the USGA Green Section we spent the better part of a day scanning through those 2,000 or so letter looking for Flynn's name or the mention of anything he did. When Wilson went abroad was not even on our minds when we first scanning through all those letters 5-6 years ago while researching on William Flynn.

If you were so interested in that issue of that Wilson trip abroad 5-6 years ago perhaps you should have gone to Far Hills yourself, as we did, and spent a day in the USGA Green Section scanning through those 2,000 letters looking for some mention of a Wilson trip abroad. Frankly, the same goes for Moriarty. One really wonders why both of you expect us to do all this research for you both! Just do it yourself; even after six and a half years of this subject it appears you still haven't! Why is that? All you seem to do or say on here recently is criticize us for not finding something FOR YOU that you've been interested in all this time.

I think your long-lasting refusal to go to the club or anywhere else that is the subject of some interest you have really has pretty much destroyed any credibility you ever had about being what you call an "expert researcher." You're probably a very good researcher from your home computer but that's about the extent of it.
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"I think everyone accepts by now that is all you do."


Tom:

Everyone?  

Then why is it that you and Moriarty are the only ones who have ever said that?    

I wonder if it's actually possible that the statements you (and David) make on here can get any more ridiculuous than they have been recently. It is you two who are so interested in your credibility and reputations, particularly with that essay, is it not?

[TEPaul]

"The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were;"



Tom:


Who the fools were?  

I guess that includes Crump's friends and Pine Valley all those years who knew of that rumor of Crump's suicide and for some reason chose never to investigate it, dredge up his death certificate and tell the world of that tragedy. If someone like you could do it there is no possible way on earth any of them couldn't had they actually wanted to confirm it throughout all those years.

Tom MacWood, you are really showing this website who you are and your true colors and it's about time and I'm glad of it. I, for one, will never consider forgiving or forgetting this incredible arrogance, egoism and lack of feeling on your part for a golf club and its memberships and the memory of a beloved owner, designer, friend, member that made it all happen for them and the world. At least Geoff Shackelford had the good sense, taste and consideration not to reveal that in an article and he knew about it long before you ever did.

Believe me, for that, if any of my friends in Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia and the other numerous clubs like it ask me for my opinion of you I will be sure to tell them that in my opinion none of them should ever show you their door! At the very least, that is what you deserve for the things you have done and the things you have said on this website. You talked above about something not boding well? Uh huh. Why don't we just stop this nonsense on here and wait and just see about that?

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP you had seen those letters before you sent me the rough draft of your Flynn book in 2005. The draft has numerous quotes from those letters. Your apologists maybe naive but not the rest of us."


Tom:

Yes it did but not from that April 11, 1912 letter from Francis to Oakley about Wilson being abroad. That letter also never mentioned a thing about why Wilson went abroad in 1912 or that Wilson had not been abroad before that. All it said to Oakley was Wilson "is on a hurried trip abroad."

So you are admitting you saw the letter and chose to ignore it? You were aware Hugh Wilson said he only made one trip. You have repeatedly mentioned the story about Wilson and the Titanic in 1912. You were aware of the 1913 Far & Sure article which said Wilson travelled abroad the previous year. By the way the letters are in chronological order so please don't give us any BS about skipping over arguably the most important period.

Matter of fact, before he went and after he returned Wilson himself never said a thing to P&O about why he went abroad or what he did over there. I copied that Francis letter at the USGA Green Section in maybe May/June of 2008. If it was in the copies Wayne and I made 5-6 years ago I'm not aware of it. We were writing about William Flynn primarily and he doesn't appear to have been part of what was going on there in 1910 and 1911 and that Francis letter had nothing to do with Flynn.

Wilson told Oakley that he had just returned from abroad, and a few weeks later mentions info he's received from Suttons. In his own account (and his brothers account too) Wilson only mentions one trip abroad. In your book you wrote Flynn assisted in the construction of the East course. Have you read it? Construction began in the Spring of 1911 just about when the letters begin. In your book you wrote there was a constant stream of correspondence between Wilson and P&O beginning 1911. So please don't insult are intelligence.

But you can just keep saying whatever you want about what we knew or didn't know at any particular time; it really doesn't matter to us because even if you try to act like it you have no idea what we knew or didn't know at any particular time compared to us.

But I can certainly understand why you keep saying those things on here now; after-all what is there really left for you to say at this point?

I think it is obvious you buried that information just as you buried the info about Barker and Macdonald, and are now trying to bury the April 1911 report. Preserving these myths seems to be your goal in life. Why is that?

[Tom MacWood]

"The Crump essay clearly showed who the fools were;"



Tom:


Who the fools were?  

I guess that includes Crump's friends and Pine Valley all those years who knew of that rumor of Crump's suicide and for some reason chose never to investigate it, dredge up his death certificate and tell the world of that tragedy. If someone like you could do it there is no possible way on earth any of them couldn't had they actually wanted to confirm it throughout all those years.

Tom MacWood, you are really showing this website who you are and your true colors and it's about time and I'm glad of it. I, for one, will never consider forgiving or forgetting this incredible arrogance, egoism and lack of feeling on your part for a golf club and its memberships and the memory of a beloved owner, designer, friend, member that made it all happen for them and the world. At least Geoff Shackelford had the good sense, taste and consideration not to reveal that in an article and he knew about it long before you ever did.

Believe me, for that, if any of my friends in Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia and the other numerous clubs like it ask me for my opinion of you I will be sure to tell them that in my opinion none of them should ever show you their door! At the very least, that is what you deserve for the things you have done and the things you have said on this website. You talked above about something not boding well? Uh huh. Why don't we just stop this nonsense on here and wait and just see about that?

TEP
You and Wayne were the fools who tried to prevent me from finding and writing about the true story. Don't try to brush off your foolish behavior on others.

[DMoriarty]

What a joke this has become!  The namesake Tompaulogist  trying to justify his and Wayne's past abhorrent behavior;  trying to pretend like they were protecting Pine Valley and Merion; trying to justify their shoddy research and their ignorance (intentional or unintentional) of the vast amounts of source material that was right in front of their noses.

Funny thing is I believe that TEPaul truly thinks he was protecting the "truth" in both the case of Merion and Pine Valley.   Unfortunately for us, it is the "truth" as TEPaul and Wayne knew it a decade ago, or whenever it was that he and Wayne started touting their knowledge of these places.   And since they think they already knew what the truth is, then all facts that disagree with his version of the truth must necessarily by wrong, misunderstood, fallacious, and revisionist.  And anyone who suggests anything other than what he believes is irresponsible, reckless, lying, etc.

I mean listen to him.  He seriously believes that the only thing that has changed about the Merion legend was the date of the Wilson trip, and as recently as about a month ago he was still intimating that there may have been an earlier trip!   He is delusional about the history of Merion.   The facts are irrelevant.  He wants you all to believe him regardless of the facts, not because of them!  That is the approach he and Wayne follow, so why shouldn't you all.

TEPaul has admitted this explicitly with regard to the Findlay letter.  If the facts disagree with what he knows, then it is the facts that must be changed, not his conclusion.   And he has admitted withholding information that may weigh against his case.    This is why it is such an easy thing for them to play games with the source material.  They are just protecting the "truth" as they believe,  and as far as they are concerned anything goes to protect that "truth."

[Jim Sullivan]

Tom, David, Tom and Mike,

To each; which of your posts was the most recent that actually helped move the conversation forward?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I think I have only had a few posts as of late, and they haven't helped move the conversation forward at all.   But when TEPaul misrepresents my essay, or misrepresents my motives, or misrepresents my research, or misrepresents his behavior, then I will occasionally set the record straight. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Don't put me in the middle of this one!

Did you read my last post?

As regards the date of Wilson's trip abroad, that was indeed a very valuable find by David which I admittedly didn't believe at first but was later proven wrong when Joe found the Findlay article that made clear it was Wilson's first trip abroad in 1912.

One related area I don't think has been discussed enough is the whole question of how and why Merion might have been inspired to attempt a few template holes prior to Wilson's trip.

I'm not sure why that is an open question at this point, if it is.   In early March 1911, before the Merion Committee's golf course plans were finalized and approved, and before construction began, the Merion committee saw not only Macdonald's detailed sketches of great holes abroad, but they also saw his own American interpretations of them in person at NGLA, as well as heard explanations of their key principles from Mac and Whigham...

Who knows...perhaps the 3rd at Merion owes more in way of direct inspiration to the 4th at NGLA than the 15th at North Berwick?

I do also think David also desrves credit for helping all of us to gain a clearer, more nuanced and detailed understanding of what M&W actually provided in terms of valuable advice and suggestions as well as what Alan Wilson meant when he wrote that M&W came to Merion a second time "to consider and advise about our plans".   Some of that was admittedly due to subsequent research efforts by others, but as I've said prior, I think his essay was the impetus for a lot of folks to dig deeper and I do believe that has all been for the greater good of our mutual understanding of Merion East's early history.
 

How about the one asking how it's possible to read the minutes as anyone but whoever went to NGLA as being the same as who laid out manyy golf courses first and then created five five plans on return?

I'm the only one here still even remotely trying to talk about the evidence.

Please show me any differently if you believe I'm not.

[RJ_Daley]

When folks of the future decide to research histories of golf courses and delve into Merion, they will undoubtedly find that the epic thread on GCA.com, for whatever point of view one is inclined to believe, is as historically curious as the golf course's history of events itself.

I think when the big Merion USGA Open event takes place, they ought to do a golf channel special report on the evolution of these 'debates' and try to determine how and why this one course could generate such a long sustained and fervant participation.  Soemtimes I liken myself looking in (only from time to time) as a rubbernecker looking at a train wreck, and sometimes from the curiousity of human behavior, and sometime to see if anyone has come to any consensus on the actual subject.  But that last thing seems to me to be like the issue of laying economists (int his case self designated golf course historians) end to end, and they will never reach a conclusion...  

But good luck to you fellows.  We are rooting for you all to come together, some how, in some dimension of time and space.  Maybe you all could be the honorary lead-off 4 some(s) at the Open when it is finally held there.  I'd buy a ticket for that!!!

[Slag Bandoon]

 
Sniper alert !!!

Ya dig a hundred and five pages
 And what d'ya get
 Another day older
 In a deeper revet.                                                                                                                                     (-ted bunker)



(With apologies to T Ernie Ford and poets everywhere.)

[Jim Sullivan]

David,

You may have missed it a few pages ago, but I think Joe's sentiment here is wise and worth considering.

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

Mike C,

Fair enough...

[TEPaul]

"Tom, David, Tom and Mike,

To each; which of your posts was the most recent that actually helped move the conversation forward?"



Sully:

Good question. I'm not exactly trying to help move the conversation forward because I don't think there is anything left of this subject to have a conversation about that hasn't been discussed before ad infinitum. But I sort of like my #3601 and another post (which I can't find at the moment ) where I sort of summarized how Moriarty used that 1910 error in Tolhurst's book to create a series of inaccurate assumptions and premises that led to his incorrect conclusion that Wilson and Committee only BUILT the course to someone else's plan and that when he wrote that essay he did not even know the material from MCC that we produced later existed which makes it very clear that Wilson and Committee created many different routings and design plans in the winter and fall of 1911, honed them down to five and with M/W on the site on April 6, 1911 submitted one to the board that was approved by the MCC board and then built.

I think that post was awesome, don't you? That one should wrap this whole thing up, and I see no reason why it won't.

WHAT? What did you say there Sully? I can't hear you; would you mind speaking up and speaking a bit louder?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok,  let's discuss the evidence.

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  

If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?


"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??

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Joe Hancock on July 24, 2009, 06:52:00 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




Joe:

You say WHAT? Did you say he said he doesn't trust us?? You say he's mentioned that 1500 times already?? Damn it to Hell, Joe, that's a fine Hoody-do, don't you think? Why the Holy Hell did you wait until July 24th to tell me that? That might change everything. He doesn't trust us, huh? Why not? We're as trustworthy as the National Bank of Switzerland!

[Jim Sullivan]

Tom,

Is there anything in your documentation to prove without question that the many plans Wilson and his crew developed were not based on very specific guidance from CBM? In other words, couldn't CBM have suggested the routing in June 1910...at least the corridors... as well as a handful of specific holes (like the current #3...) that would get Wilson about 80% of the way to the product that resulted in April 1911?

[DMoriarty]

David,

You may have missed it a few pages ago, but I think Joe's sentiment here is wise and worth considering.

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

Trust them?  If anyone trusts them at this point I would be very surprised.  I just want a clear record of what happened, lest anyone erroneously believes a word TEPaul types.   But perhaps you are correct.  Why would anyone believe anything he types at this point?   

Still though, to be safe, I will occasionally set the record straight when he goes off on these tangents about my essay, about the evidence, about his past misrepresentations, etc.   If TEPaul doesn't like it then he ought to stop misrepresenting this stuff.

[Jim Sullivan]

I'm not worried about Tom liking it or not...


If there is a ocnversation to move, let's do it, otherwise let's reconvene when we have something to discuss...

[DMoriarty]

Sounds good to me.

[TEPaul]

"Jim,  I think I have only had a few posts as of late, and they haven't helped move the conversation forward at all.   But when TEPaul misrepresents my essay, or misrepresents my motives, or misrepresents my research, or misrepresents his behavior, then I will occasionally set the record straight."



Sully:

It's basically as simple as pie. His essay says a couple of times that Hugh Wilson and his committee only CONSTRUCTED Merion East to someone else's routing and design plan.

There is nothing in those remarks and conclusions that are hard to understand at all.

Since the essay, we have produced Wilson's own report that explains how they created numerous plans in the months before the course was built.

This isn't rocket science and I'm not misrepresenting anything about the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion". That's what it says a couple of times; read it yourself, and if you can't find where it says Wilson and Committee only BUILT or Constructed the course to someone else's plan I'll find those parts for you in his essay and quote them on here.

There is no misrepresentation at all of his essay on my part----that is what it says and that is patently false and we produced Wilson's own report to prove very clearly why it's false.

What more are you looking for? What more could any competent and credible researcher be looking for?  




Is there anything I just said there Sully that you think is untrue or inaccurate somehow? If so what is it?



But if you don't care what I think or know or like or don't like or say about Merion's history and that essay's revision of it and you just want to have a conversation about any of this with Moriarty, then by all means be my guest! The idea of you and others on here wandering around in another discussional wilderness perhaps endlessly is actually both appealing and amusing to contemplate!  


And of course that sounds good to the essayist as he's never really challenged. Just loft a bunch of soft-ball questions at him; he actually appears to be able to handle those with some modicum of logic. Well, let me amend that; even that's not possible anymore!

The way that Wilson report was dealt with on here by those two Wilson and Committee antagonist is actually about the funniest thing I have ever seen on a thread on here that purports to look for the truth on anything.

THEY USED "we" and "they" in the SAME REPORT???

Oh MY GOD, your Honor, THAT makes absolutely no sense at all----THROW THE WHOLE thing out!  Totally INADMISSABLE as EVIDENCE!!

And even if it DOES make sense, your HONOR, the damn defense counsels have DOCTORED and ALTERED the EVIDENCE!!

YOUR HONOR, did you say Wayne Morrison is actually the architectural historian of MERION??? That's outrageous YOUR HONOR, I demand he be disbarred and dismissed from this courtroom immediately! That man is nothing more than a "legend" and "myth" perpetuator!! HE will just not do, Your Honor------WE WANT THE TRUTH!!!!

 

[Jim Sullivan]

Tom,

When I said I didn't care if you liked it or not, what do you think I was referring to?



As to a potential "discussional wilderness" I think the total number of words I've put on this thread is about 1% of your own.



The Wilson report probably is very enlightening, but I doubt it lays out each step they took. You and I have spoken about this numerous times and we agree that the information currently available supports Wilson doing the lion share of the work with some help from M&W.

I think it is important to remember that this essay was posted in an "In My Opinion" section of a Golf Architecture website and could easily be read as an opinion. David's opinion is very strong, and mostly counter to my own understanding of the events, but not something that needs to be treated as re-writing history.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
When I said I didn't care if you liked it or not, what do you think I was referring to?"


Sully:

If I only get one guess I would have to say Chubby Checker and The Twist. I believe the exact meaning of both was danged near parsed to death on page #94.

[Joe Hancock]

To the combatants,

Please don't assume that I(or anyone else, for that matter) fall on one side of the fence or the other, or even care enough to take up a position, just because you haven't heard me disparage you publicly. I don't feel compelled to get into the negativity in a public forum, as many of the active participants of this thread have. I, like many others on here, have a few shreds of a career left in this golf course design and build business and don't care to lose all face by calling people names and questioning their integrity in public.

Just because there's only two people who are willing to say something negative about you or not trust what you write doesn't mean there isn't a whole bunch more thinking it.

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok,  can we actually discuss the evidence?

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  


"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."


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??


If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?

[TEPaul]

"Would anyone care to answer the questions below?"


NO!  Been there, done that, only to see the response that "we" and "they" in the Wilson report renders the report senseless!  

Oh, and of course, I was accussed of historical fraud for doctoring and altering original documents!      

So, why would I want or need to hear that again?  


BONG, BONG, BONG!!!   Because I'm a SADOMASOCHIST!!!

OK, tell me again "we" and "they" in the same report renders the report senseless and I doctored and altered original documents in my on-going conspiratorial mission to maintain the "legend" and "myth" of Hugh Wilson and hide the truth that C.B. Macdonald routed and designed Merion East!

[DMoriarty]

Ok,  let's discuss the evidence.

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  

If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?


"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??

No.

1.  It was the Golf Committee report, not the Site Committee report.
2.  The snippet is just that.  We don't know what else it says, and we know that there is material missing (such as the bit about the construction company.)
3.  Different versions of this section have been given.  Most notably, TEPaul claimed that it said WE laid out many different courses . . ." When combined with  [/i]THEY went down to the National . . .[/i].  This indicates that it is NOT just Wilson's committee the report is talking about.
4.  Hugh Wilson's statement (the one we all have) indicates that the got a "good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes" at NGLA, implying that they hadn't done any laying out up to that point.
5.  WE HAVENT SEEN THE SOURCE MATERIAL SO WE CANNOT AGREE TO ANYTHING.

What don't you get?   The way it has been presented it is not only suspect, it is incomplete and ambiguous.   We are at a loggerhead until the source material is presented so that it can be properly verified and vetted.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok.

Sounds good to me.

I tried.

Have a good day.

[DMoriarty]

Also Mike,  there is a difference between planning five different layouts and laying out five different plans.   The snippet addresses the latter, but does address whose plans they were.  

[TEPaul]

"Ok.

Sounds good to me.

I tried.

Have a good day."





Me too!  



"What don't you get?   The way it has been presented it is not only suspect, it is incomplete and ambiguous.   We are at a loggerhead until the source material is presented so that it can be properly verified and vetted."


What don't you get? If you think the way we've presented it on here is suspect, incomplete and ambiguous why in the Hell don't you go try to get it yourself and present it on here? Honest to God, you really do need to address that because after the way you've treated us here on this subject why in the world would any of us have the slightest motivation to do a God-damned thing for someone like you? And I sincerely hope that Merion G.C. and MCC and any other club like them in America feels precisely the same way.

Jeeeesus, you are really something else, David Moriarty! For your next mission why don't you write a really good In My Opinion piece on the most effective ways to alienate important clubs and their members and friends? On that I have no doubt at all you will be or are a world class expert!
 

[DMoriarty]

You tried?  You told us to accept your interpretation of documents we have not seen, even though TEPaul's respresentations differ from yours, and you call this your attempt at a productive discussion?    

As I have been saying all along, it is not a discussion if one side just insists that the other side accept what they say as true, without offering facts to prove up that claim.    

Mike, I answered your question, so here are a few of mine.

Do you agree that you guys are NOT PROVING UP YOUR CLAIM?

Do you agree that you are simply asking us to take you word for what the documents say?  

If so, do you seriously think that, at this point, this is a reasonable request?

Do you have a photographic memory?    Do you remember EXACTLY what the report said, from beginning to end?   Did you transcribe the photograph of the actual report?  

If the answer to these questions is NO, then how in the heck can you be so sure of yourself as to what the document says?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not "you guys".

I'm not part of a "posse", or a "syndrome", or whatever.

I'm only quoting evidence as was presented here previously from the MCC Minutes.   If you believe that either it's incomplete, tampered with, or otherwise faulty, or more specifically, if you don't trust that what I'm provding here is based on my copiying them verbatim from initial posts here, or don't trust me when I say that the wording is consistent with what I've seen twice, then there is no point in discussing it and indeed, it's clearly time for us all to move on because as I said previously, the MCC Minutes are not mine to provide.

[DMoriarty]

1.  You ARE "you guys."  Like it or not.  You have long been parroting for Wayne and sometimes Tom.  You have been privy to a glance at the information.  YOU are insisting that we accept your interpretation of the truth.

2.  If you are only quoting what you have seen on these threads, then your repeated statements that this is exactly what it says are WORTHLESS.   You don't know exactly what it says.  

3.  I KNOW it is incomplete.   I KNOW that it has been presented inconsistently.   THESE THINGS I KNOW.

4.  HOW CAN YOU SAY THE WORDING IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN TWICE?    DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY?  DID YOU CAREFULLY TRANSCRIBE THE WORDING FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH?    

I can answer both these questions for you.   You don't have a photographic memory, and you copied the wording from the threads.   THEREFORE MIKE, YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR YOUR SUPPOSED AUTHENTICATION OF THE ACCURACY.  

Do you understand that last statement?   You have no basis for telling us what the documents actually say.  You don't have them.  You did not copy them exactly.   You are going by the same screwed up record as the rest of us.  

Do you understand that?   Because it is important.