[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I hate to break my fast before it even starts, but since TEPaul's last post has nothing to do with the land deal maybe it doesn't count.  

TEPaul is fond of portraying my approach as one from the courtroom.  He constantly accuses me of applying legal principles and as being out to "prove" something. His statements confirm how little he knows about what goes on inside a courtroom.

I am not out to prove anything.  I am out to figure out what happened.  That's why I don't give a damn how many people TEPaul thinks I've convinced or haven't convinced. There is no jury here. The truth isn't determined by popularity contest, or who you know, or what clubs your daddy belonged to.  I much prefer trying to figure out what happened than advocating for another.  

The irony is that TEPaul and Mike are the ones consumed with convincing others that they are right and, more importantly, that I am wrong.  That is what lawyers do, not researchers.  They advocate for their client's position and try to cast doubt on their opponent's position.  And they try to control the dissemination facts so that those facts which are ultimately presented to the trier of fact will benefit their client and hurt their opponent.  That is TEPaul and Mike Cirbaa in a nutshell, only there are limits to what most lawyers do.

TEPaul obviously doesn't understand or care that in any disciple there are definite standards when it comes to research and analysis, and in some ways these standards are more stringent than in a court of law.  And these guys have made a mockery of the truth seeking process by refusing to allow their facts and claims to be vetted and verified.

To put it simply, these guys fail to understand that while we are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not all entitled to our own facts.    

[JESII]

David,

I think you should operate on the assumption that Tom, Mike and Wayne do not have anything of material that would change the current positions...there's no smoking gun currently in their posession.

Unfortunately for Jeff, alot of this conversation does come down to word splicing...if we're looking to figure out what happened...fortunately, as Jeff suggested...we're not dealing with lives or money...

[TEPaul]

Decide for yourself, Jimbo; decide for yourself. Decide about what you believe Merion's architectural history is and who should be credited as its primary architect, certainly in 1910 and 1911. You should also decided for yourself about what Moriarty and MacWood have tried to say and do on here about the architect and architectural history of Merion. One says Macdonald routed and designed the course and Wilson's committee just built it to his plan. The other says Barker must have done it. Both claims are such bullshit it just makes the people who know that club and its history laugh.

We know what the truth about that history and so does Merion. And we know the truth about those two guys on here as well. Merion's never done a thing to distort or glorify what Hugh Wilson did in some attempt to idolize or turn him into an icon thereby minimizing someone else even though those two have accused the club and some of us of doing just that.

The real irony of that neither one even knew what Lloyd resolved at the Special Board meeting of July 1, 1910 about Macdonald and Whigam. So they thought MCC and their history must have tried to minimize him! Yeah right!? Just the opposite in fact but those two knew so little about the club's research material they didn't even know THAT!!   

Wilson just did what he did and the record is clear what he and his committee did. The only significant mistake a Merion history book made was that story about the 1910 trip abroad and for seven months. But that story did not happen until about sixty years after Wilson and his committee did what they did in 1911 and that story had nothing whatsoever to do with what they did back then.

[TEPaul]

"David,
I think you should operate on the assumption that Tom, Mike and Wayne do not have anything of material that would change the current positions...there's no smoking gun currently in their posession."


You're right about that Sully. We put all the information available on here. We actually did it last year. There was more information on those threads than there is on this one. What those guys apparently wanted is for Merion to send them copies of everything in their archives or for us to scan it all on here. That's not the way Merion's process works, and as members and friends of Merion either do we. We have respect for that club and the people who run it. Apparently Moriarty and MacWood do not! Those two guys asked Merion and MCC about that via email and that is exactly what they were told and asked to do if they were interested in researching Merion's archives. They were told if anyone is really interested in Merion's or MCC's archives they need to come to those clubs, like anyone else. They were told to use the same process anyone else does. If that requires taking a plane then just take a plane. That's what we do when we research courses in California or Boston or Florida or wherever.

That is what Moriarty and MacWood were told and they just didn't do it. MacWood even had a reason he put on here like he thought that might influence his objectivity or something! Uh, HUH!   

Don't you think everyone interested in this subject on here should ask them why they refused to follow Merion's process and ours? Don't you think everyone should ask them why they think THEY should be the only exceptions? 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

If you have more evidence to bolster your claims, please produce it.   Thanks.

My theory is based on:

1) Allen Evans' letter that states work will commence in December 1910
2) Hugh Wilson's many letters to P&O which show the course was routed at the time he started with project (2/1/1911) and explain what exaclty their purpose, i.e. construction.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Their argument about the letters, when combined with their argument about when the course was supposedly routed, makes no sense.  Look at the dates of the letters.    The blueprint showing locations was sent after the NGLA meeting.


Jim,

I'm not sure what David is contending here, other than trying to establish some linkage between their early March visit to Macdonald and Wilson then sending the soil samples.   If I know David, he's probably trying to stretch the truth here to imply that they sent it on Macdonald's orders..

In any case, here's what Wilson had to say about his visit to NGLA, as well as why the soil samples were held up.

Let me know if these are readable...if not, I'll try to blow them up or add contrast, or whatever...thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

As to the recorded routings, its the ones mentioned in the MCC minutes that they took to CBM, and revised after seeing CBM.  You called the Barker routing the only recorded routing, but it has never been seen either, right?

I don't believe I have seen that report. Could you post it?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I have the salient parts transcribed and paraphrased above on #1120 from earlier today.

I believe Jim Sullivan may have seen them as well.   I hesitate to put him on the spot, but if you doubt I'm being accurate, perhaps you could ask him.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

If someone had already routed the golf course prior to sending the contour map to P&O, wouldn't it seem logical that it would have been Wilson who designated which spots on the property he was concerned about for soil analysis?

No. Wilson (and the committee) was responsible for the construction of the golf course. He had to prepare the ground for seeding, that is he had to prepare the ground that would be fairway, tees and greens for seeding.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

If someone had already routed the golf course prior to sending the contour map to P&O, wouldn't it seem logical that it would have been Wilson who designated which spots on the property he was concerned about for soil analysis?

However, that's not what happened, as the very first letter from Wilson to P&O illustrates;

You forgot to underline the part that says: "Our idea is to get the best analysis we can of the soil and what is needed to fertilize the ground, with a view of getting the best short growing grasses."

He didn't say, our idea is get the best analysis of the soil so we can we begin routing or planning or laying out the golf course. The golf course was already routed.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You're wrong on a few counts.  

He also seeded the roughs.   You need to keep up with the discussion here.

All,

Here is something very telling as Hugh Wilson tells us exactly what Macdonald's role was, just as Tillinghast did, as Hugh did again in 1916, as Robert Lesley did, as Alan Wilson did, as everybody back then did and they all used the very same wording.

"Advice"

[Tom MacWood]

Thanks Mike...there surely is no limit on the number of alpha-sections they may have used, is there...not by those letters anyway...

Originally Wilson sent Piper a the contour plan and asked him where he should get the samples to be analyzed. Oakley responded questioning the idea of even doing a soil analysis. He didn't think it was a useful procedure, but said he would be glad to do it anyway. He told him send sample of typical soils. Wilson responded that he would send small samples of the typical soils, which he did. Seven or eight seems like a reasonable number.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You're wrong on a few counts.  

He also seeded the roughs.   You need to keep up with the discussion here.

They did seed the rough, but even Wilson admitted it was not a priority. Do you think they treated and prepared the rough just as they prepared the greens, tees and fairways?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Yes, except for the 25 acres they felt the grass coverage and type were sufficient on holes 10, 11, and 12.

[Tom MacWood]

Where do you read they treated every inch of the property?

[TEPaul]

"TMac,
As to the recorded routings, its the ones mentioned in the MCC minutes that they took to CBM, and revised after seeing CBM."


Mr. Jeffrey:

I beg to differ about what you said! There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, that even indicates that the Wilson Committee took any plan or anything at all to do with Merion East's planning to NGLA with them! The only evidence we actually have from that time is the so-called Wilson Report to the MCC Board Meeting of April 19, 1911 AND that letter of Wilson's to Oakley in which he mentioned he (they) had just returned from NGLA.

People like David Moriarty has speculated that they must have taken their plans to NGLA and discussed them with Macdonald and Whigam but the truth is there is not a scintilla of evidence that they did that. He can say and continue to say things like they must have or it's so logical that they would have or whatever, but the fact is there is nothing to say that the did---hence just more speculation on speculation again to try to make some ultimate point about how Wilson and committee were not capable of doing something et al, blah, blah, blah. 

We really do need to ONLY consider the contemporaneous material evidence we do have from that time and not speculate about what was never said or mentioned back then and what we DO NOT have which too many on here have done. And when they do, apparently even some such as you get it confused with what the actual facts are in that contemporaneous material evidence from back then and what they weren't.

That's the real danger with these kinds of discussions on here and particularly with people like Moriarty and MacWood and that unfortunate essay who just offer completely unsubstantiated speculation and in a day, a week, a year somebody mistakenly quotes it as actual fact from back then.

Moriarty actually tries to do that kind of thing in his essay. In the beginning he will offer his OPINION on something that is not in the slightest factually substantiated and later in the essay he will refer back to it as if it is fact or as if it should be taken as fact.

To me this is the essence of fallacious logic and reasoning and I think Moriarty has always been well aware of it. MacWood, on the other hand, is another matter, in my book. I don't think he even recognizes what that kind of fallacious logic and reasoning means or what it does to produce an inaccurate analysis of history!  

[Tom MacWood]

"TMac,
As to the recorded routings, its the ones mentioned in the MCC minutes that they took to CBM, and revised after seeing CBM."


Mr. Jeffrey:

I beg to differ about what you said! There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, that even indicates that the Wilson Committee took any plan or anything at all to do with Merion East's planning to NGLA with them! The only evidence we actually have from that time is the so-called Wilson Report to the MCC Board Meeting of April 19, 1911 AND that letter of Wilson's to Oakley mentioned he (they) had just returned from NGLA.

People like David Moriarty has speculated that they must have taken their plans to NGLA and discussed them with Macdonald and Whigam but the truth is there is not a scintilla of evidence that they did that.

We really do need to consider the contemporaneous material evidence we do have from that time and not speculate about what was never said or mentioned back then which too many on here have done. And when they do, apparently even some such as you get it confused with what the actual facts are in that contemporaneous material evidence from back then.

That's the real danger with these kinds of discussions on here and particularly with people like Moriarty and MacWood who just offer completely unsubstantiated speculation and in a day, a week a year somebody quotes it as actual fact from back then.

Moriarty actually tries to do that kind of thing in his essay. In the beginning he will offer his OPINION on something that is not in the slightest factually substantiated and later in the essay he will refer back to it as if it should be taken as fact.

To me this is the essence of fallacious logic and reasoning and I think Moriarty has always been well aware of it. MacWood, on the other hand, is another matter. I don't think he even recognizes what it means or what it does in an inaccurate analysis of history!  

TEP
Why not post the document in order to prevent more confusion? It seems strange to me we have all these other official MCC documents to observe, study and interpret on our own, yet for whatever reason with this one you insist on excepting and interpreting it for us. Why?

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Thanks for scanning that letter of Wilson's after they just returned from NGLA, but you know what---in the last week or so I actually typed that entire letter out and put it on here. It's just amazing to me how some of these people on here who seem to be so interested in this subject just don't even bother to read or consider important contemporaneous information that is offered to them.

MacWood, is apparently the worst----and I agree with you that if he cannot even bother to read what is put on here than he really shouldn't participate and slow us down. His endless and generally innane questions really are getting old!

And even of a few minutes ago on a post of his it's quite clear he STILL is unaware of what the so-called Wilson Report is or what it says. That is pretty pathetic for someone on here who still thinks everything or even anything he says matters to us historically or otherwise.

[JESII]

Tom M,

I saw this at TEPaul's house last week...it's simply a photograph of the Board Minutes book of the page covering this. It was brief and the post by Mike Cirba - #1120 - quotes it accurately. Tom P (nor I...) does not know how to post images but I assure you that this is honest.

Mike C,

Do you notice in the March 13 Wilson letter that he refers to NGLA identically to MCC at that point? As Courses! I think that is a very significant point you and Tom should acknowledge cannot be passed of as just the general property. It doesn't have to mean a fully planned and detailed course, but it has to mean something much more specific than just the property they own.


Tom Paul,

Under your theory of everything of substance happening in March and April 1911, how can you not give CBM substantial credit for the routing that resulted? Even Francis' idea would have been subject to Macdonald's approval...

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Why not post the document in order to prevent more confusion?"


Tom MacWood:

Just how slow on the uptake are you really?

How long have you known me on this website? Ten years, eleven years?

Have you not even noticed in all that time I do not post documents on this website???

The reason is I don't know how!!!

If it seems necessary to post information on something like that that I have and no one else on this website has, then I consider just typing the whole thing out and putting it on here.

And for THAT, I have a jerk like you accuse me of actually 'altering original documents.'  

The last time you did that, by the way, was last year on this very same document----the so-called "Wilson Committee Report" to the MCC April 19th board meeting.

And NOW you tell us you are even UNAWARE of what it is or what it says???  

Really amazing! You ought to retire from this avocation, Pal, because you really are out to lunch in some damn Ivory Tower!  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You're right, Mike Cirba did quote the Wilson report accurately in #1120 but he did not quote all of it. He may not have all of it and he may've just quoted a part of it from what I quoted on this website last year which WAS all of it.

If MacWood is not even willing to go to Merion for this information which it seems he isn't, AND he is not even willing to look in the threads on this subject from last year in which I quoted the whole thing then I'm afraid I'm just not interested in helping this guy undertand a thing.

And this man has the balls to refer to himself on here as an 'expert researcher?'

God help us all who really are good researcher/analysts and do some good writing for other than just this Website. He reminds me of those failures in Basic Training in Parris Island that some of us had to just pick up and carry to the finish line on the Three Mile Run that the whole USMC company had to finish in a prescribed time or do it all over and over again.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Please see my posts 1127 and 1135 which make clear the entire property (except the 25 acres deemed good enough as is) was plowed, the entire property was limed and manured, and the entire property was seeded.

Jim,

I realize that Wilson calls each a golf course, but I think we also have to keep in mind the fact that by March 1911, NGLA had been open for about nine months, having had a sort of "coming out" tournament in July 1910, shortly after Macdonald visited Merion for the first time.

The NGLA club itself opened shortly after, and I'm sure CBM had everything he could do to get the course in even better shape, as it was evidently still very rough and that was noted during the opening tourney.

By contrast, even if we assume that Merion in March of 1911 had some sort of staked out routings, which very well may have been the case if they'd been working with "many different golf courses" in the months prior to April, it was still much as Hugh Wilson described...after the snow melted it was half fine grasses...half a corn field...with 25 of the 117 acres deemed with sufficient type of grass coverage to not have to plow it under.

The rest of the property had to be completely turned over, twice before fall, limed...fertilized...with tees and greens then shaped afterward..and then seeded seven months later.

It was far, far from a golf course in comparison to where the National was after five years of Macdonald working it in the spring of 1911.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom M,

I saw this at TEPaul's house last week...it's simply a photograph of the Board Minutes book of the page covering this. It was brief and the post by Mike Cirba - #1120 - quotes it accurately. Tom P (nor I...) does not know how to post images but I assure you that this is honest.

Jim
It seems innocuous enough...why not post it then?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom M,

I saw this at TEPaul's house last week...it's simply a photograph of the Board Minutes book of the page covering this. It was brief and the post by Mike Cirba - #1120 - quotes it accurately. Tom P (nor I...) does not know how to post images but I assure you that this is honest.



David/Tom MacWood,

Now that I've posted accurately the portion about CBM's role in helping determine the final routing (the so called "Wilson Report"), I'm hopeful we can move to just discussing what you all think that means, and move past this nonsense of charges of "hiding documents", or altering documents, etc.

As Jim said, it's what the MCC Minutes honestly say about the events leading up to the resolution to accept the proposed routing and make the purchase of the land as recommended.

I'm not sure what you read into it, but I do think it helps establish the timeframes more accurately, so at least we're all looking at the same evidence and discussing the meaning of it from there.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Please see my posts 1127 and 1135 which make clear the entire property (except the 25 acres deemed good enough as is) was plowed, the entire property was limed and manured, and the entire property was seeded.

Please point to where you read they treated every inch of the property excepting 25 acres? Are you referring to Wilson's account in P&O's book? This is what he wrote regarding treatment:

"We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()