Desmond Tolhurst's account

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link to the 'Archivists Code of Ethics' please forward this on to John Capers:

http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp

[Mike Cirba]

This coming from a guy who had Hugh Wilson traveling through Argentina before designing Merion. And if I'm not mistaken who also roasted Marrucci and the entire Merion membership at the time the course was being 'restored'...thankfully they have short memories, especially if that person has shown he will go to the ends of the earth to defend the Wilson mythology.


Tom,

You continue to prove my point, unfortunately.

Yes, I spent a good deal of time poring through ship's manifests looking for evidence of other Wilson trips because those manifests were so error-prone, as seen in the case of George Crump's 1910 trip.   Names like "H. Wilson", "H.I. Wilson", or just "Hugh Wilson" could be found in the hundreds.

At the time, I was unaware nor had you guys shared the fact that you had collaborating evidence of the timing of Wilson's trip.   I'm sure you both got a big laugh out of watching me waste my time.

And like many here, I was critical of the Merion bunker project, and still don't believe they were restored accurately, although Matt has them looking really pretty good, although I would tell you I NEVER personally singled out any member or administrator for criticism, nor did I criticize the membership generally.   Going with Tom Fazio seems like a good idea to members...he's generally known as the best, most popular architect working today to the general public.   It's understandable, even if many of us believe that other architects are more sympathetic to history and do a better job at the meticulous work of recovering features accurately.

I think you owe me an apology here for saying that I insulted specific individuals or the general membership at Merion, Tom.    I'm not sure why you want to take this think further into the gutter, but that's your choice.

It's much too nice a day outside.   I suggest you go out and get some sunshine and think about perhaps taking a different tack here.

That's what I'll be doing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning and I am not ignoring you, but 1) life intervenes sometimes, and 2) I hesitate to post, just because it’s ugly right now and 3) it’s clear that we all process info differently.  As such, I am not sure it will satisfy you or anyone.  But, briefly, here goes, in two parts, tackling the unpleasant part first.

You described my post as a "new" theory when I clearly said that I was relating how I came to my opinion last year and confirmed my opinion again in this year’s rehash.  Nothing new – The short version is that I side with the club records until they are proven wrong, not unlike the incumbent champion and get the benefit of the doubt from me as “judge.” 
 
IF there is anything new in my thoughts, it was that link to construction of logical arguments I posted where I realized many of your arguments use faulty logic, including basing arguments on assumptions.  You need to place Francis in 1910, but as far as I know, NO documentation does that or tells us what the initial HDC land offering looked like.  All of that is speculation, even if the triangle looks a bit like the triangle of the final golf course and we can start wondering why that is. 

Here is another example of faulty logic from your Reply #1334

I SAY:

* There is no documented evidence to contradict the April 11 report on the timing of the routing,

YOU SAY:

Given that, as far as I know, the alleged April 11 report does not say anything about when the routing process began, contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible-- how could I contradict something that the alleged report doesn't establish?

IN RESPONSE I SAY:

Huh?

If the record says nothing about it, then yeah, contradictory evidence is required.
While nothing in any of the project documents precludes routing before April 1911, precluding is not proving, either.  And basing an argument on an assumption is faulty logic, pure and simple. In truth, if any one of those” logical arguments/assumptions” you make is wrong, your whole theory is probably wrong.  And, I think some of them are wrong.

Lastly, I think your quote that “contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible” best sums up many of your arguments to date - you don’t think you need evidence to prove your points. I am glad you finally tripped up and admitted it! 

Generally, you have the ability to sound like you are making a good argument, but in reality it is cleverly disguised Faulty, Faulty, Faulty Logic (you could look it up in that or a dozen other links on the internet).  Until I realized the exact cause of my frustration with you – it’s impossible to argue against flawed logic disguised as historical research, I sometimes blew up at you.  No more! I doubt I will comment any more on this thread because it is just so useless to all of us.

--------------------------------------------------

Back to the meat of the subject, rather than your method, I will say that in essence, you and I agree on everything but the timing of the land swap and perhaps the exact degree of involvement of CBM, but we know he was involved heavily.  As to the three acres, you say you don't understand my position.  Let me try it again a slightly different way.

I understand your point that it is possible that Francis meant to say only that he had the idea to extend the land north of Haverford College border while the land purchase is under consideration.  However, I read his comments literally, too -"my one contribution to the layout"- (which I take as planning, and not surveying, since he says he does that for "many hours" just before) as contributing to the ROUTING and not just the idea to extend the land. 

So if we read THAT part of his statement literally, AND add in what the record shows:

•   Francis was involved in 1911:
•   The final routing plans were taking place in April 1911, and the swap was part of the final plan
•   How the borders were formed to the routing, and how the April 11 report makes the FIRST mention of needing the extra three acres for that routing, which was approved.
•   They started blasting to build the 16th green, which they could not have known until its location was established (taking Francis literally)

Then, I think the April routing theory holds up better because it is better supported by primary documents and doesn’t rely on the same documents not saying what they say or meaning what they mean.  Your theory needs Francis to be involved earlier than the record shows, but for which you can provide no proof from the records, that doesn’t depend on “your understanding of the facts” (which, in fact, is the cause of this whole dispute)

But, once again, I can understand how you derive your conclusion, even if I am more certain than ever that much of that is derived from some faulty logic.  I know saying that you use faulty logic is sort of rude, but I believe it is true.  I suspect you will retort (with some justification) that some of my observations above (as in which parts of Francis to take literally, in response to some of your use of the same words) is just as much speculation.  Guilty as charged.

But, I would be interested in your take of my admittedly new observation on Francis - did he contribute to the final routing as he appears to me to say, or did he contribute to the idea to extend the land north of the college boundary earlier and then bow out?  Or do you assume he did both, even though there are not any recorded mentions of two different contributions anywhere in the record that I could find?

[Tom MacWood]

David,

Good morning and I am not ignoring you, but 1) life intervenes sometimes, and 2) I hesitate to post, just because it’s ugly right now and 3) it’s clear that we all process info differently.  As such, I am not sure it will satisfy you or anyone.  But, briefly, here goes, in two parts, tackling the unpleasant part first.

You described my post as a "new" theory when I clearly said that I was relating how I came to my opinion last year and confirmed my opinion again in this year’s rehash.  Nothing new – The short version is that I side with the club records until they are proven wrong, not unlike the incumbent champion and get the benefit of the doubt from me as “judge.”
 
IF there is anything new in my thoughts, it was that link to construction of logical arguments I posted where I realized many of your arguments use faulty logic, including basing arguments on assumptions.  You need to place Francis in 1910, but as far as I know, NO documentation does that or tells us what the initial HDC land offering looked like.  All of that is speculation, even if the triangle looks a bit like the triangle of the final golf course and we can start wondering why that is.  

Here is another example of faulty logic from your Reply #1334

I SAY:

* There is no documented evidence to contradict the April 11 report on the timing of the routing,

YOU SAY:

Given that, as far as I know, the alleged April 11 report does not say anything about when the routing process began, contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible-- how could I contradict something that the alleged report doesn't establish?

IN RESPONSE I SAY:

Huh?

If the record says nothing about it, then yeah, contradictory evidence is required.
While nothing in any of the project documents precludes routing before April 1911, precluding is not proving, either.  And basing an argument on an assumption is faulty logic, pure and simple. In truth, if any one of those” logical arguments/assumptions” you make is wrong, your whole theory is probably wrong.  And, I think some of them are wrong.

Lastly, I think your quote that “contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible” best sums up many of your arguments to date - you don’t think you need evidence to prove your points. I am glad you finally tripped up and admitted it!  

Generally, you have the ability to sound like you are making a good argument, but in reality it is cleverly disguised Faulty, Faulty, Faulty Logic (you could look it up in that or a dozen other links on the internet).  Until I realized the exact cause of my frustration with you – it’s impossible to argue against flawed logic disguised as historical research, I sometimes blew up at you.  No more! I doubt I will comment any more on this thread because it is just so useless to all of us.

--------------------------------------------------

Back to the meat of the subject, rather than your method, I will say that in essence, you and I agree on everything but the timing of the land swap and perhaps the exact degree of involvement of CBM, but we know he was involved heavily.  As to the three acres, you say you don't understand my position.  Let me try it again a slightly different way.

I understand your point that it is possible that Francis meant to say only that he had the idea to extend the land north of Haverford College border while the land purchase is under consideration.  However, I read his comments literally, too -"my one contribution to the layout"- (which I take as planning, and not surveying, since he says he does that for "many hours" just before) as contributing to the ROUTING and not just the idea to extend the land.  

So if we read THAT part of his statement literally, AND add in what the record shows:

•   Francis was involved in 1911:
•   The final routing plans were taking place in April 1911, and the swap was part of the final plan
•   How the borders were formed to the routing, and how the April 11 report makes the FIRST mention of needing the extra three acres for that routing, which was approved.
•   They started blasting to build the 16th green, which they could not have known until its location was established (taking Francis literally)

Then, I think the April routing theory holds up better because it is better supported by primary documents and doesn’t rely on the same documents not saying what they say or meaning what they mean.  Your theory needs Francis to be involved earlier than the record shows, but for which you can provide no proof from the records, that doesn’t depend on “your understanding of the facts” (which, in fact, is the cause of this whole dispute)

But, once again, I can understand how you derive your conclusion, even if I am more certain than ever that much of that is derived from some faulty logic.  I know saying that you use faulty logic is sort of rude, but I believe it is true.  I suspect you will retort (with some justification) that some of my observations above (as in which parts of Francis to take literally, in response to some of your use of the same words) is just as much speculation.  Guilty as charged.

But, I would be interested in your take of my admittedly new observation on Francis - did he contribute to the final routing as he appears to me to say, or did he contribute to the idea to extend the land north of the college boundary earlier and then bow out?  Or do you assume he did both, even though there are not any recorded mentions of two different contributions anywhere in the record that I could find?

Jeff
If you haven't seen the April 1911 report or minutes how can you be confident you know what it says?

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

I commend you on your clear explanations and examples of the faulty (fallacious---eg fallacy) logic and reasoning on the part of the author of the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

Henceforth, rather than just responding to his speculations in his questions and responses I think you should always try to pick up on the fallacious reasoning and logic behind any and all of it and just point it out.

I think it may take a pretty good working knowledge of the extent of the actual and factual evidence from MCC before one can pick up on it but now it appears you pretty much have that knowledge or as much of it as is required to recognize faulty logic in that essay and on the part of its author on here.

I recognized it just about two and half years ago as soon as that essay came out as did the historians of Merion and others from that club who are pretty well familiar with the actual evidence from the club and MCC.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Thank you for the "Archivists Code of Ethics." It appears neither you nor Moriarty have ever actually read it or understood it in its entirety (not unlike the fact neither of you understood the archival material of Merion and MCC in its entirety). But better late than never, I guess. That is if you're willing to follow those instituions policies and at least consider actually going to them and their archivists and historians.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I don't have the conspiracy theorists mindset that you and David do.  I accept that what is presented is what it is.  If it turns out it is wrong, or if new documents turn up providing new and different evidence, I will eat my words and say I was wrong.  

But, for now, I won't base any arguments on the straw man propsition that it must be wrong because the Philly guys haven't provided all of the Merion documents, or the assumption that what the primary particpants wrote just can't be right.

Enjoy your Labor Day cook out!  For now, you won't be able to roast my words.....and I won't have to eat them.  Maybe next year, but not for now......

BTW, I add my thanks for posting the ethics link. Intersting reading.  Again, both sides of the battle here could probably pick out snippets to suggest they are on the right side of history.  You probably would pick out the clauses about benefiting or distorting documents.  In the end, the professional judgement clause seems to prevail, IMHO.  Which means Merion would be hard to be proved wrong in their decisions to protect their documents, even if it is inconvenient for you and David. 

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

Thank you for pointing out and explaining the conspiracy theorist mindset of MacWood and Moriarty on the subject of Merion or perhaps Philadelphians generally regarding the area's golf course architecture and its architects.

These two have been plying that conspiracy theory philosophy about Merion and Philadelphia area architecture and architects for five to seven years now (in the last five to seven years MacWood has labeled it many times on threads and posts on here as the "Philadelphia Syndrome") and this morning Merion and the rest of us around Philadelphia has been treated to an "Archivists Code of Ethics" from MacWood that apparently means he's now contending that Merion and the rest of us here in Philadelphia are "archivally unethical" because the archivists of Merion and others here who are connected to the club won't send him all the information they have on the history of Merion even though they don't do that for anyone!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

While I have no interest in joining that side of the debate, I have often thought that a separate discussion (or truly, an outside evaluation) of whether a discussion group is subject to those ethics, or really a serious historical research medium might be warranted.  There are more than a few cases of particpants here thinking gca.com is somehow a respected body in the world of golf.  While it does get read, I am not sure how much it has affected either the industry as a whole, its practices, or even the historical community as a whole, or its practices.

I suspect the influence is less than some here generally suppose.  And that, I presume, is a factor of guys like you and me spending far too much time here than would be justified for personal mental health reasons alone!

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
While I have no interest in joining that side of the debate, I have often thought that a separate discussion (or truly, an outside evaluation) of whether a discussion group is subject to those ethics, or really a serious historical research medium might be warranted.  There are more than a few cases of particpants here thinking gca.com is somehow a respected body in the world of golf."



Jeffrey:

I agree with you. I think a separate discussion on that issue would be appropriate, particularly since MacWood and Moriarty have been very vocal on here that this website is or should be part and parcel of the world of scientific and/or academic historical research and its procedures and ethics. I don't think so, and I never have. Perhaps they feel that way since this website is the only place they've been able to publish their opinions.  

But even if this website is some form or degree of a simulacrum, I would still expect that if they are really interested in credibly researching and writing about some subject like the history of a golf course that they would at least have the sense and initiative to actually go to it first or before they presented their opinions about it and its history. And I might add to that they should also probably have the commonsense to not try to treat the subject and some of its members and friends adverserially first.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

I don't have the conspiracy theorists mindset that you and David do.  I accept that what is presented is what it is.  If it turns out it is wrong, or if new documents turn up providing new and different evidence, I will eat my words and say I was wrong.  

But, for now, I won't base any arguments on the straw man propsition that it must be wrong because the Philly guys haven't provided all of the Merion documents, or the assumption that what the primary particpants wrote just can't be right.

Enjoy your Labor Day cook out!  For now, you won't be able to roast my words.....and I won't have to eat them.  Maybe next year, but not for now......

BTW, I add my thanks for posting the ethics link. Intersting reading.  Again, both sides of the battle here could probably pick out snippets to suggest they are on the right side of history.  You probably would pick out the clauses about benefiting or distorting documents.  In the end, the professional judgement clause seems to prevail, IMHO.  Which means Merion would be hard to be proved wrong in their decisions to protect their documents, even if it is inconvenient for you and David. 

Jeff
Did you answer my question? No. Your careless and lackadaisical approach to history is the reason you have presented more erroneous information than anyone in the history of this site. Your theories should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

The answer to my question should have been you don't know. We have been presented two different versions of the April report, and those different versions paint completely different pictures. One of them is wrong for certain, both could be wrong. You have no idea if either one is accurate. Not only that you also have no idea of their context. You don't know what proceeded the excerpt and you don't know what followed.

[DMoriarty]

Here is another example of faulty logic from your Reply #1334

I SAY:

* There is no documented evidence to contradict the April 11 report on the timing of the routing,

YOU SAY:

Given that, as far as I know, the alleged April 11 report does not say anything about when the routing process began, contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible-- how could I contradict something that the alleged report doesn't establish?

IN RESPONSE I SAY:

Huh?

If the record says nothing about it, then yeah, contradictory evidence is required.
While nothing in any of the project documents precludes routing before April 1911, precluding is not proving, either.  And basing an argument on an assumption is faulty logic, pure and simple. In truth, if any one of those” logical arguments/assumptions” you make is wrong, your whole theory is probably wrong.  And, I think some of them are wrong.

Lastly, I think your quote that “contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary, it would be impossible” best sums up many of your arguments to date - you don’t think you need evidence to prove your points. I am glad you finally tripped up and admitted it! 

Jeff,  your comments baffle me.  I am not sure I understand your argument, but so far as I can tell you are saying that because the alleged April report establishes that planning was taking place in the spring, then the swap must have happened in the spring.   While I agree that planning was still taking place in the spring, I believe that the evidence establishes the the planning began much earlier, before Merion agreed to purchase the land.   I also believe your theory is inconsistent with this evidence, including the Francis statement.

As for your claim that I don't think I need evidence to prove my points, I think you must have me confused with some others. 
-- I don't need to contradict the alleged April 1911 report, because my position is consistent with anything allegedly in it.
-- My evidence for the timing of the planning is the same as its always been, and includes the Francis description, read in conjunction with what else we know about what was happening in 1910, including the creation of that illustrative map.

And Jeff, it is not impossible to argue with faulty logic, as I just demonstrated above. 
-- You rely on the alleged April report as if that alleged report contradicted my position regarding the timing of the planning.   
-- That report does not contradict my position regarding the timing of the planning. 
-- Therefore your logic fails. 

--------------------------------------------------

Back to the meat of the subject, rather than your method, I will say that in essence, you and I agree on everything but the timing of the land swap and perhaps the exact degree of involvement of CBM, but we know he was involved heavily.

 

Great.  Then we are in agreement on what is really the major issue.

As to the three acres, you say you don't understand my position.  Let me try it again a slightly different way.

I understand your point that it is possible that Francis meant to say only that he had the idea to extend the land north of Haverford College border while the land purchase is under consideration.  However, I read his comments literally, too -"my one contribution to the layout"- (which I take as planning, and not surveying, since he says he does that for "many hours" just before) as contributing to the ROUTING and not just the idea to extend the land. 

So if we read THAT part of his statement literally, AND add in what the record shows:

•   Francis was involved in 1911:
•   The final routing plans were taking place in April 1911, and the swap was part of the final plan
•   How the borders were formed to the routing, and how the April 11 report makes the FIRST mention of needing the extra three acres for that routing, which was approved.
•   They started blasting to build the 16th green, which they could not have known until its location was established (taking Francis literally)

Then, I think the April routing theory holds up better because it is better supported by primary documents and doesn’t rely on the same documents not saying what they say or meaning what they mean.  Your theory needs Francis to be involved earlier than the record shows, but for which you can provide no proof from the records, that doesn’t depend on “your understanding of the facts” (which, in fact, is the cause of this whole dispute)

This seems to be sort of a mystery dish of logical analysis.  You list out ingredients and apparently dump them into a pot, and then pronounce that you have baked a chocolate cake, or some such thing.   I have no idea how you think these ingredients could ever produce the result you claim.  And I don't think "your understanding of the facts" is sound.

For example, take the mystery three acres.  You wrote: "and how the April 11 report makes the FIRST mention of needing the extra three acres for that routing, which was approved." Can you tell me specifically what the report says about this?  And how it fits into your theory?  Because I don't get it, and definitely don't get "your understanding" of this.   
- What in the record establishes that three acres was needed for the routing? 
- What in the record indicates that this three acres had anything to do with the swap? 

LIkewise, 'your understanding of the facts' is that "and the swap was part of the final plan."   I don't get it.  While the results of the swap were obviously included in the final plan, the general results of the swap are incorporated on the Nov. 1910 map.   

But, once again, I can understand how you derive your conclusion, even if I am more certain than ever that much of that is derived from some faulty logic.  I know saying that you use faulty logic is sort of rude, but I believe it is true.  I suspect you will retort (with some justification) that some of my observations above (as in which parts of Francis to take literally, in response to some of your use of the same words) is just as much speculation.  Guilty as charged.

If I was really using faulty logic, you wouldn't have to just repeatedly accuse me of it, you could simply prove me wrong by pointing out specifically where my logic fails.  Despite all your talk of "faulty logic" you've done no such thing.  And if I may say so your attempts to do so have applied some very faulty logic, case above in point.

But, I would be interested in your take of my admittedly new observation on Francis - did he contribute to the final routing as he appears to me to say, or did he contribute to the idea to extend the land north of the college boundary earlier and then bow out?  Or do you assume he did both, even though there are not any recorded mentions of two different contributions anywhere in the record that I could find?

You present a false choice.   The very notion that surveying and working the instruments out on the course to specifically lay out the course on the ground are not contributions to the layout of the course is unsupportable on a number of levels.   As to the general routing, according to Francis he came up with the idea which allowed them to fit the last five holes on the course, and that, I believe, happened before the Nov. 15 1910 map was drawn.

Now I guess it could be that Francis came up with this idea in 1910, and it was expressed on the Nov. 1910 map, but that they didn't want to pull the trigger on it until CBM had a chance to see it, and so they held of on finally committing to it until CBM saw it in person and approved of it, and when they went to CBM at NGLA it was one of the many plans layouts they had considered, but then that would be a lot of speculation.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Thank you for the "Archivists Code of Ethics." It appears neither you nor Moriarty have ever actually read it or understood it in its entirety (not unlike the fact neither of you understood the archival material of Merion and MCC in its entirety). But better late than never, I guess. That is if you're willing to follow those instituions policies and at least consider actually going to them and their archivists and historians.  

TEP
The code of ethics is not difficult to understand. John Capers has violated more than half these codes, including sharing private inquires.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul:
And I know there're a series of emails with Capers, Morrison and you but you don't have any emails from the president of the club; you only cced him in your emails to Capers and Morrison.
TomMacWood:
TEP
How would you know what Merion emails I've sent and to whom; you certainly were not copied on them?
[/quote]
TEPaul
Tom MacWood:
Do you really want me to answer that question on here? Is this something you want to discuss on this DG; and if so why would that be?

I too would like to know how TEPaul comes into possession of private communications to Merion, and given how comfortable TEPaul has been about expressing the private views of what those at Merion on this website, this seems a perfect venue for that discussion.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Thanks for your very well thought out posts that are supported by actual facts and real physical  evidence.

Congratulations also on your new title.  I must admit that it stings a bit to lose what I thought was clearly mine, as I seem to be the one who presented the most contradictory evidence on this site refuting these specious theories hinging on triangles and train rides, but I guess I'll willingly allow you your moment in the spotlight.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
The code of ethics is not difficult to understand. John Capers has violated more than half these codes, including sharing private inquires."



Tom MacWood:

Would you care to elaborate on what codes of ethics Capers violated?

Are you saying that it is your opinion that if Capers gets an inquiry from someone who he doesn't know that he has no right under this Code of Ethics to ask a friend of his who knows the person making the inquiry about him? John Capers does not look at GOLFLCUBATLAS.com and he may not have even known you were on it unless you mentioned it to him yourself, as well as mentioning the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" to him as well. So, again, you're saying you don't think he has any right under this Code of Ethics to ask others he knows about any of that or about you? That's pretty interesting!

This sounds something like that time you bragged to me about conning that Merchantville township manager out of information about Crump's suicide without telling him why you were calling and then getting pissed off at me for calling him and asking him about it and about you.

So what codes of ethics do you think Capers violated?   

[DMoriarty]

The real irony regarding that code of ethics is that it Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison are both involved with the USGA's supposed archival project regarding golf course architecture.   Yet it is hard to find anything in that Code of Ethics that Tom and Wayne haven't repeatedly violated.  

As for Merion, my belief is that John Capers' mistake in all of this may be that he has trusted Wayne Morrison to act with honesty and integrity in these matters, even though it is obvious that Wayne has not.  

TEPaul, was it John Capers himself who sent you the various correspondence, or was it Wayne?   I know sometimes you had the information from correspondence to John Capers (not cc'd to anyone) in a matter of minutes.   Did John Capers forward to you such emails directly, or did Wayne forward them after he had received them from John Capers?  

Does John Capers have any idea what sort of mockery Wayne Morrison has made and continues to make of Merion's archival process?  

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

What "two versions" are you referring to?

If you let me know the source of your confusion, I'll be happy to share my understanding.

Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Thanks, I think....

I, too would be interested in which two versions TMac is talking about because I don't recall that being the case.

TMac,

You aren't worth answering.

David,

Good afternoon.

I am not surprised that we continue to disagree on the land swap or what constitutes faulty logic.  I can only say that I read all 40 plus test cases on that site, compared them with some of the arguments you have made, and then easily concluded that many of your points use fallacious logic.

Mine and others may, too. I hate to point out only you.  But, since you tend to make the most arguments, I feel you might be the most guilty!  And frankly, I don't get the impression that taking the MCC documents at their word, rather than combining them with other information (much of it from assumptions) is as faulty as some of the convoluted stuff others have come up with. 

But, what do I know.  We sure don't need another fifty pages debating our differing views on what is good and bad logic.  Nor do I think making any more point by point comparisons of your (IMHO) faulty logic to what I found on those websites is productive, and would be insulting to you.  I think I could do that however, substituting your words almost in cut and paste fashion to the "classic" examples cited. 

But, why waste our time and ruin our Labor Day weekend?  My real point is that I happen to come down on the simpler explanations embodied in the record, and haven't changed that position at all.  I will gladly do so when more stuff comes out that is really new documents and not a rehash of what we have already discussed.

And yes, we do agree on most stuff, even if the smallest details can never be known and CBM may or may not have been given "enough" credit by MCC in its history.  However, that is a value judgement and it was their call to make.

[DMoriarty]

Again Jeff, rather than lecturing me on your general impressions of my logical abilities, address the arguments.  With all the research you've done on faulty logic, it really ought to be a cinch for your to refute mine.  And don't worry about embarrassing me, so long as you are addressing my actual arguments instead of just pontificating about what you feel is my general approach.  I'd be glad to have any of this supposed faulty logic stricken from my argument.

But pretending to be an expert on faulty logic because you read about it on a website doesn't cut it.  Address the supposed faulty logic, or don't.  Either way, quit pretending that your general pronouncements about my approach in any way refute anything I have said.    Surely your source on faulty logic  had something about false claims of expertise being used in place of an actual logical argument.  

[TEPaul]

"The real irony regarding that code of ethics is that it Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison are both involved with the USGA's supposed archival project regarding golf course architecture.   Yet it is hard to find anything in that Code of Ethics that Tom and Wayne haven't repeatedly violated."


David Moriarty:

What codes of this Code of Ethics have Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison repeatedly violated in their involvement with the USGA Architecture Archive?  

[TEPaul]

"As for Merion, my belief is that John Capers' mistake in all of this may be that he has trusted Wayne Morrison to act with honesty and integrity in these matters, even though it is obvious that Wayne has not."


David Moriarty:

John Capers works directly with Wayne Morrison on the Merion archives and yes he does trust him as does Merion. And I'm quite sure, AT THIS POINT, neither Capers nor Morrison nor Merion gives one Good God Damn what YOUR BELIEF is about any of this. You have marginalized yourself in all this and noone is responsible for that other than you!

 



"TEPaul, was it John Capers himself who sent you the various correspondence, or was it Wayne?   I know sometimes you had the information from correspondence to John Capers (not cc'd to anyone) in a matter of minutes.   Did John Capers forward to you such emails directly, or did Wayne forward them after he had received them from John Capers?"


The answer to that question is none of your business. That's Merion's business and those they choose to deal with.  

[DMoriarty]

"The real irony regarding that code of ethics is that it Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison are both involved with the USGA's supposed archival project regarding golf course architecture.   Yet it is hard to find anything in that Code of Ethics that Tom and Wayne haven't repeatedly violated."


David Moriarty:

What codes of this Code of Ethics have Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison repeatedly violated in their involvement with the USGA Architecture Archive?  

TEPaul, I didn't write "violated in their involvement with the USGA Architecture Archive."   I wrote "it is hard to find anything in that Code of Ethics that Tom and Wayne haven't repeatedly violated."  You two  have made a mockery of just about every ethical precept in dealing with the histories of such courses as Merion and Pine Valley, and continue to do so.  It makes no difference whether your egregious behavior occurred when you were technically on the clock for the USGA.

Are you suggesting that in dealing with the USGA you are going to somehow miraculously change your ways and start acting as upright historians and archivists?   It seems much more likely that you will do everything in your power to continue to manipulate the various histories to fit with your preconceived partisan viewpoints.  

[DMoriarty]

"As for Merion, my belief is that John Capers' mistake in all of this may be that he has trusted Wayne Morrison to act with honesty and integrity in these matters, even though it is obvious that Wayne has not."


David Moriarty:

John Capers works directly with Wayne Morrison on the Merion archives and yes he does trust him as does Merion. And I'm quite sure, AT THIS POINT, neither Capers nor Morrison nor Merion gives one Good God Damn what YOUR BELIEF is about any of this. You have marginalized yourself in all this and noone is responsible for that other than you!

My belief notwithstanding, Wayne Morrison has made a complete mockery of Merion's archival process.  One would think Merion would care about that.

"TEPaul, was it John Capers himself who sent you the various correspondence, or was it Wayne?   I know sometimes you had the information from correspondence to John Capers (not cc'd to anyone) in a matter of minutes.   Did John Capers forward to you such emails directly, or did Wayne forward them after he had received them from John Capers?"


The answer to that question is none of your business. That's Merion's business and those they choose to deal with.  

It is none of my business who violated various ethical precepts by forwarding my private communications to you so that you could use them for rhetorical gain in a petty internet vendetta?

You have a unique way of looking at the world.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

You have presented so much faulty logic, I don't have time to do it, nor do I wish to.  So, for now, I will leave it to others to satisfy themselves by checking it out, if they care.

Besides, you used it again (according to the websites I consulted) and as I mentioned, we just process information much differently.  I knew my post wouldn't get you (or to be fair, almost anyone who had a different opinion than mine) to change your mind.  People rarely move off entrenched positions.  

You are correct that one visit to a website does not make me an expert on the subject.  That said, it also wouldn't take anyone who visited much time to see how much faulty logic you use.  

So, rather than providing you more fodder for faulty argument, I will only say that it is only my opinion and theory that much of the logic you used in your Merion essay and subsequent rebuttals here are faulty logic.  As our mutual friend Tom MacWood tells us, as long as its a theory, it doesn't need to be substantiated with fact.  And, as you tell us, facts are unnecessary to prove contentions.  So, I feel I am on solid ground here, even if this whole debate is really stuck in quicksand.

BTW, simply in an effort to find one more area of agreement, so that our relationship deteriorates no further, I have agreed in the past that it is amazing that the USGA hasn't tried to corral TePaul in his behavior here, if only because it is so un blue blazer like.  And, again say that while I understand all the differences between parties, after Phil Young posited that your material was far enough along to present for vetting, that you weren't morally wrong to post it, as TePaul implies.  It seems to me like in this day and age, celebrities (whether hollywood or golf clubs) are just prone to "unauthorized biographies" (or their equivalents) and need to deal with it better than he has.  At the same time, while I understand how your arguments with TePaul can get heated, I don't think Merion really deserves treatment from you and TMac implying in tone or explicity stating that their club history (despite a few flaws 50 years later) has some "dirty laundry to be aired out".  I can sure see why Merion thinks this whole discussion is beneath them.

I see yet another heated exchange with TePaul, as I type this.  I decline to get further involved with that!