News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1400 on: September 06, 2010, 03:15:28 PM »
David,  you wrote:

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.

My point exactly. You ARE speculating, especially since the record shows they drew five plans AFTER the meeting.

But again, I can see how you arrive at that point.  It could have happened, but it still requires more of the known record to not reflect the timetable.  In fact, it requires a whole lot of what the known record doesn't say to be true, because it is speculation.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1401 on: September 06, 2010, 04:00:20 PM »
I offer the following on Material fallacies from Wikipedia.  I apolgize in advance for the fact that on my machine, the formatting including spacing won't come out right:

The taxonomy of material fallacies is widely adopted by modern logicians and is based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:

 Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization
•   Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions
o   Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).

Moriarity Example: The accepted way of building a golf course in 1910 was to route the course before buying the land

Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization
•   Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule
o   Example

Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Whom one has met is a subset of the entire set. One cannot have met all people.

o   Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter
Irrelevant Conclusion
•   Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
o   Example

Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.

Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)
o   Special cases:
   purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
   popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
   fear (argumentum ad baculum),
   conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)
   to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
   proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
o   Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

Moriarity Example of an irrelevant conclusion:
I SAY:

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

YOU SAY:

"how could I contradict something that the alleged report doesn't establish?"

 Affirming the Consequent

•   Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q

o   Example:

Argument: If people run barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt. Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.
Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).

(Paraprhased) Moriarity Example: It looked like a triangle in 1910, and the land swap resulted in a triangle, thus the land swap had to have occurred in 1910.

 Denying the antecedent

•   Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q

o   Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.

 Begging the question
•   Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
o   Example

Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.
Problem: Billy may be lying.

o   Also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer. Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself.

Moriarity Example:

DM as quoted from #1134:
“contradictory evidence is not only unnecessary,

DM as quoted from #1386:
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.

And

-- 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

To be honest, I believe restating his previous conclusions, never proven and demanding they be accepted as fact probably violates one of the faulty logic principles listed somewhere.

And

My explanation is not only simple, it also takes into consideration Francis and the initial offer by HDC

Once again, he has stated his conclusions, based on his interpretation of the shape of the land parcel offered by HDC.  Has that ever been shown in a document?

Hey, I could go on with the examples, at David’s request, but its too nice a day, and I have too much respect for David to do so.  However, I present the rest of Wikipedia’s list of faulty logic (which is not the same list I used before, but similar)

Fallacy of False Cause -    Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

o   Example
Argument: Taxes fund necessary services such as police, courts, and roads; this demonstrates the necessity of taxation.
Problem: The fact that taxes currently fund certain services does not prove that taxation is the only means, or the best means, of funding those services. Although, in all fairness, it is a deductive fallacy to claim that the logical possibility of something (funding public services without taxes) implies its practicality, probability or even existence.
o   Special cases
   post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
   Example
Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism.
Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.
   cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that happenstance implies a causal relation.
   Example
Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows.
Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the consumption of ice cream.
Also called causation versus correlation.
Fallacy of many questions
•   Fallacy of many questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in the form of a single question
o   Example
Argument: Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?
Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point. (See also Mu.)
o   Also called Plurium Interrogationum and other terms
Tom MacWood Example: about half the posts he ever had made……
Straw man
•   Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
o   Example
Person A claims: Sunny days are good.
Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death Therefore, you are wrong.
Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

Moriarity Example:  I have seen this one, but have to go back to earlier posts.  I will if I have to!
Verbal fallacies
Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.
[edit] Equivocation
•   Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms
Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.
Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. In the case of fog, it means that the fog is nearly opaque, not that it has a great mass.
[edit] Connotation fallacies
•   Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.
[edit] Argument by innuendo
•   Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was never caught taking money from the cash box" implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement.[1]
[edit] Amphiboly
•   Amphiboly is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure
Example: The position of the adverb "only" in a sentence starting with "He only said that" results in a sentence in which it is uncertain as to which of the other three words the speaker is intending to modify with the adverb.
[edit] Fallacy of Composition
•   Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments (e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage")
Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled.
Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but lack the ability to function properly as a group.
[edit] Division
•   Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part
Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".
Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 700 years. The university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person. See Theseus's Ship paradox.
Example Argument: "This cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast therefore the cereal is nutritious."
Problem: Simply because the breakfast taken as a whole is nutritious does not necessarily mean that each part of that breakfast is nutritious.
[edit] Proof by verbosity
•   Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
[edit] Accent
•   Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expert pianist.[citation needed]
[edit] Figure of Speech
•   Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.
Example: The sailor was at home on the sea.
Problem: The expression 'to be at home' does not literally mean that one's domicile is in that location.
[edit] Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion
•   Fallacy of Misplaced Concretion, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discussion.
[edit] Example 1
Timmy argues:
1.   Billy is a good tennis player.
2.   Therefore, Billy is 'good', that is to say a 'morally' good person.
Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy. Nothing concerning Billy's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.
[edit] Example 2
One posits the argument:
1.   Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2.   Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
3.   Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.
This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity. In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:
Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness.
So instantiating this fact with eating a hamburger, it logically follows that
Eating a hamburger fails to be better than eternal happiness.
Note that the premise A hamburger is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means something such as
Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all.
Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation.
[edit] Deductive fallacy
Main article: Deductive fallacy
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies. – valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation – .
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g., appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
[edit] Formalisms and frameworks used to understand fallacies
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1402 on: September 06, 2010, 04:06:37 PM »
I think the counter-point to the original essay has just been written.

Barring additional or new evidence, or any questions anyone has of me, I'm so happy to be done here..

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1403 on: September 06, 2010, 04:07:57 PM »
Jeff...thanks for always adding sanity and balance here. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1404 on: September 06, 2010, 04:12:23 PM »
Mike,

To repeat, David is not the only one guilty around here. None of us really has a foundation in logic that would be required if this were in fact some kind of scholarly debate that some of us think it is, moi included.

I just throw this out there to show how ri-frickken-diculous this whole debate has become, and in some ways, was from the beginning.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1405 on: September 06, 2010, 06:07:40 PM »
Jeff,

Any argument based on trying to refute suppositions based on asumptions presented as fact is by nature bound to be less than enlightening.

I'm sure I contributed more than my share of useless and erroneous speculation, as well, but I think those of us who saw the logical flaws in the essay were left in the absurd, unenviable position of trying to dis-prove a negative, when instead we long should have been simply asking for factual evidence to support his contentions that really never existed.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 08:16:56 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1406 on: September 06, 2010, 06:34:01 PM »
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."  


David Moriarty:

What you actually wrote in #1391 was:

“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.”



It seems you sort of forgot about the implication of your first sentence when responded. ;)  

« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 06:36:50 PM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1407 on: September 06, 2010, 06:46:26 PM »
TePaul,

Okay, now we have to get logicians involved in this AND english teachers!  I read it like you did - that the second sentence referred back to the first.  To be truthful, I am not sure how far forward one inference carries, from a college English professors point of view.

What is the over/under on the number of pages devoted to who uses the King's English more correctly?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1408 on: September 06, 2010, 10:22:27 PM »
"TePaul,
Okay, now we have to get logicians involved in this AND english teachers!"


Mr. Jeffrey:

Do we? I don't think so. I think we read it the same way for a pretty obvious reason? Need I explain? Of course not!


  

"I read it like you did - that the second sentence referred back to the first."



Of course you did and of course it does. That's the way it reads even if the writer of it tries to use fallacious logic and denial in his next response!  ;)





"To be truthful, I am not sure how far forward one inference carries, from a college English professors point of view."



It's not rocket science, Jeffrey, even with college English professors; it's pretty much the everyday art of communication (or intentional lack thereof).




"What is the over/under on the number of pages devoted to who uses the King's English more correctly?"


Who cares? I won't be participating and I hope you won't either.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 10:25:00 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1409 on: September 06, 2010, 10:52:46 PM »
Jeff,

Thank you for your continued patronizing lectures, and for copying a Wikipedia entry you could have just as easily cited.   But then if you had, you'd likely have lost the impact of your materially fallacious APPEAL TO PRESTIGE OR AUTHORITY of "Wikipedia."   Copying Wikipedia and misclassifying tidbits from my comments within it may create the appearance that you have supported your cliams, but it does not a logical refutation make.  But then that gets us to the real problem; you apparently have no idea of what is a formal logical fallacy.  

What you have mostly listed are not formal logical fallacies (breakdowns in deductive reasoning) but material and verbal fallacies.   While these are sometimes called informal logical fallacies, they are not really about the soundness of a deductive argument, but rather are ways of convincing people of something while avoiding any sort of actual logical proof or any sort of actual refutation of a logical proof.  They are more a subject of rhetoric  than logic.

But since you brought it up, I agree that material and verbal fallacies are substituted for deductive reasoning all the time around here, as if they by themselves prove the case,  and this is a real problem.   Verbal and material fallacies are rhetorical tools used to convince others without resorting to any sort of deductive reasoning, so it turns the debate into a matter of rhetoric or sophistry rather than a search for the truth.   Some examples . . . .

-- This whole exercise of yours is a perfect example of a fallacious APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.  Rather than dealing with my actual deductive reasoning, you make this bizarre appeal to Wikipedia, as if Wikipedia has an opinion on my essay.  
-- TEPaul's constant reminders of who he knows, who his ancestors were and how he is so popular at Merion and elsewhere are likewise APPEALS TO PRESTIGE AND AUTHORITY (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) Likewise his claims and implications that he knows the truth because he and Wayne have control of the source material.  
-- For a good example of an APPEAL TO POPULARITY OR THE MASSES (Argumentum ad Populum) we have TEPaul's and Mike Cirba's repeated claim that they must be correct because in their minds everyone agrees with them, and I must be incorrect, because in their minds no one agrees with me.  Neither has anything to do with what actually happened.
-- The most popular around here are the APPEALS OF PERSONAL RIDICULE (Argumentum ad Hominem).  Included in these are just about all of TEPaul's posts, many of Mike Cirba's, some of mine, and of course this entire line of criticism of yours where you are much more interested in critiquing me than addressing my arguments.  
-- At least some of your appeals to your own modern day experience as a course designer are also fallacious APPEALS TO PRESTIGE AND AUTHORITY, but they also have elements of APPEALS TO IRRELEVANCIES, as well as FALSE ANALOGY.

There are many more, but as you can see it is pretty easy to simply classify arguments as material fallacies.  And sometimes classification might be enough, as is the case of TEPaul flouting his blue blood credentials or Mike Cirba's righteous indignation, because obviously neither has anything to do with the truth.  

But sometimes it is a bit more difficult, like your appeals to your authority as a designer. On the one hand, you are a golf course designer and that must give you some insight into how the process works, at least today.  On the other hand, the circumstances in which you work aren't anything like the circumstances 100 years ago, when land was more plentiful and the entire notion of a "golf course architect" was brand new.  Maybe your expertise in what happens today helps you understand what happened 100 years ago, but it seems about as likely that it may bring with it a number of biases and presuppositions that just don't apply through time.  It comes down to a judgment call as to how much weight to give your authority, but the reality is that however much weight one chooses to give it, the weight of your expertise alone doesn't necessarily get us any closer to the truth than does TEPaul's experience as a Blue Blood.  

And therein lies the rub.  Some of what you consider to be "material fallacies" are not necessarily material fallacies at all, unless they are taken as dispositive.  They are simply factors that one must carefully consider to determine whether or not they add any weight to one's opinion one way or another.   Unfortunately, unlike true formal logic, "material fallacies" are often in the eye of the beholder, and the accusation is used as much as a rhetorical tool than it is as an effective means of sorting through an argument.   SEE YOUR POST ABOVE.

The logic or illogic of deductive reasoning (or deductive logic) is an entirely different ballgame.  So long as the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises then thy argument is logically valid, whether or not the argument is sound.  I don't think there is much doubt that my logic follows.  I think most of our disagreements are about how we understand the facts.   But by declaring a disagreement about the facts a logically fallacious argument you are yourself making a material fallacious argument, because you are mischaracterizing our dispute for rhetorical gain.

Bottom, line is that the only cure for false logic is logical refutation.  Until you provide logical refutation you are spitting into the wind.

______________________________
David,  you wrote:

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.

My point exactly. You ARE speculating, especially since the record shows they drew five plans AFTER the meeting.

But again, I can see how you arrive at that point.  It could have happened, but it still requires more of the known record to not reflect the timetable.  In fact, it requires a whole lot of what the known record doesn't say to be true, because it is speculation.

Relax Jeff, this isn't my theory.   All I was trying to do was to figure out a way make your new theory consistent with the facts as I understand them.  I agree that it is speculative which is why I said it was speculative.  But it is no more speculative than your new theory.
_______________________________________

Jeff and TEPaul,

That you misunderstood me is no surprise to me.   What I don't get is that you then have the nerve to argue with me when I explain exactly what I meant.   I know what I meant, and you do not.

As I said, as far as I am concerned it shouldn't matter whether TEPaul's and Wayne's unethical treatment of these histories  happened on the USGA's clock or not.

_____________________________

Jeff,

Will you ever answer my questions about the mystery three acres?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 11:02:26 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1410 on: September 06, 2010, 11:04:19 PM »
"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?"


David Moriarty:

YOUR private communications? Your private communications with whom? With Merion? Did Merion or whomever you communicated with there TELL YOU your communications with them were PRIVATE? And if not, why do you assume they are or should be? If THEY have no idea who you are do you think it is unethical of them to ask their friends who you are and why you want access to their archives?

YOU are the one who has a pretty odd way of looking at the world!  ;)

Frankly with the vindicative and insulting comments about Morrison, Capers and a good and significant golf club both you and MacWood have made on this thread in the last 36 to 48 hours, I just find it really hard to believe that anyone, and even including you two, would purposefully try in every way possible to make themselves as unpopular and as unappealing as you two have to that golf club and even this website.

With you two this is way beyond things like any Code of Ethics or some higher level of academic research. This is now into the realm of human nature now and a class club like Merion, in my experience, just isn't into dealing with complete assholes like you two!


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1411 on: September 06, 2010, 11:12:02 PM »
David,

Again, no surprise you don't like my account. When I cited a link to a logic source, you told me I should be directly explaining my arguments, and when I do that, you said I could have just linked the to the site without lecturing you.

Hey, if I wanted to go some place where I couldn't win an argument, I would go back and live with my ex!

Have a good evening. I think we can both agree that this is ridiculous and a waste of all of our times.  You have your unproven theories about Merion's history.  We have our theories.  I think we all know deep down this is just a pissing match and hasn't been about history for quite some time.  Rather, its about the facts, as you keep tellling us, as you understand them.

PS - If I haven't answered your question about the mystery 3 acres (or for that matter as to why I have confidence in documents posted by Mike Cirba for Tom MacWood) then I guess we just process information so differently that I never will.  No insults intended, but it is a fact that all humans process info differently.  Also, there has to be some willingness to listen to even be able to process info.  No doubt we all argue right past each other many times on this thread.

But, there are no mystery acres.  We could walk along clubhouse drive tomorrow and point them out (literally) left and right.

Again, good night.  
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 11:14:59 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1412 on: September 06, 2010, 11:17:14 PM »
Jeff, loved that :D

Guys, I am in no way against what you are doing with all of this, as I am a believer of, if you don't like it, don't read it!

But 1 question after lurking for a long time.

Do you guys just enjoy the arguing??

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1413 on: September 06, 2010, 11:30:21 PM »
Pat,

Short version - yes!

You know, it is fun to challenge thoughts and ideas of other like minded people to a point.  We have passed that point on not one, but multiple Merion threads.

I am just as guilty as the next nut job!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1414 on: September 06, 2010, 11:38:22 PM »
Good night to you too, Jeffrey.

#1409 is totally over the top in my book. I see no reason to stay on some website that puts up with hysterical, self-posessed mumbo-jumbo bullshit like that. If the world-wide participants of Golfclubatlas.com can't hoot that off or this website's administrators don't have the sense to take it off then you all can have it and I actually hope you enjoy it in some kind of weird way.

These people and the good club that Moriarty and MacWood have completely insulted and disparaged for years and particularly in the last 36 to 48 hours are all friends of mine and for that last thirty some years. They take pride in their impressive and august history and they strive to see that its presented accurately.

I don't know about some of you people but I believe in my friends and I'm going to stand by them.

Good night and goodbye!

Kris Shreiner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1415 on: September 07, 2010, 12:34:01 AM »
Could this thread be drawing to it's merciful end? ;D ??? :P
"I said in a talk at the Dunhill Tournament in St. Andrews a few years back that I thought any of the caddies I'd had that week would probably make a good golf course architect. We all want to ask golfers of all abilities to get more out of their games -caddies do that for a living." T.Doak

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1416 on: September 07, 2010, 01:09:15 AM »
Kris

I hope it's drawing to its merciful end but as the Chinese adage says; "I'll forgive but I'll never forget."

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1417 on: September 07, 2010, 01:17:27 AM »
TePaul,

Good night. Forget what?

David,

One question before I go.....Were you Hatfield or McCoy in our ongoing battle?  And pards, do you even remember what we are fighting about?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1418 on: September 07, 2010, 01:42:12 AM »
"TePaul,
Good night. Forget what?"


Jeffrey:

Well, certainly not Post #1409!   ;)


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1419 on: September 07, 2010, 01:55:30 AM »
The problem, Jeff, is that whether you quote the entire thing or just link to it, there is no Wikpedia article that refutes my argument.   The only remedy for a logically fallacious argument is a logical refutation.

It isn't a pissing match for me.  I'm curious to figure out Merion's history.  You haven't answered a single question I've asked about the mystery three acres.  I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't going to consider your answer.  I've never understood the factual basis for any of the significance you and others seem to place in this mystery three acres, and given that neither Mike nor TEPaul is capable of reasonably addressing any of this stuff, I was hoping you could.  My mistake.

If you walk South on Golf House Road and see some of those mystery three acres to the right, then you might ask yourself why Merion purchased acreage for the fine homes along side the road.   That is, if your mind processes such information.

___________________________________________________________________

Pat, I do enjoy a frank discussion, but I don't enjoy this.  

_______________________________________

Appropriate that TEPaul is name calling and babbling on about his grudges and about who he knows.   He can go ahead believing in his friends and standing by them.   I'll stand by the truth every time.  
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 02:03:07 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1420 on: September 07, 2010, 06:00:29 AM »
"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?   

TEP
John Capers has violated II, III, V, VI and VII, and possibly IV. He is the poster boy for unethical archivists.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1421 on: September 07, 2010, 06:03:37 AM »
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?  


Ultimately John Capers is responsible, he is the official archivist. If he has a couple of rogues operating below him it his responsibility to reign them in and obviously he has not done that. Whatever they have done with his material is a reflection on him and on the club.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1422 on: September 07, 2010, 06:07:33 AM »
David,  you wrote:

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.

My point exactly. You ARE speculating, especially since the record shows they drew five plans AFTER the meeting.

But again, I can see how you arrive at that point.  It could have happened, but it still requires more of the known record to not reflect the timetable.  In fact, it requires a whole lot of what the known record doesn't say to be true, because it is speculation.

Jeffery
Again you have no idea what that record shows. Only a fool would continually quote from and rely upon a record they have never seen.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1423 on: September 07, 2010, 08:06:42 AM »
"Jeffery
Again you have no idea what that record shows. Only a fool would continually quote from and rely upon a record they have never seen."

And yet you quote train schedules you have never seen to establish Barker routed Merion.......

Not to mention that I simply quoted David and you say I am quoting from the record.  I take it you think DM is the authority on MCC and its history now?  Even that quote has me baffled.  David basically repeats his theory, and then tells us he was making something up to explain my theory and how stupid it was?  Either way, way to twist an argument.

Again, it just goes to show how differently we view this, and to a larger degree, what a pissing match it is, despite David telling us that is not the case and suggesting his motives are pure as the driven snow.   That in itself is the biggest lie told on these threads. Well, not exactly, since he is presenting a real snow job! ;D
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 08:23:16 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: Desmond Tolhurst's account
« Reply #1424 on: September 07, 2010, 08:11:25 AM »
...and refuse to answer direct questions such as why you think two different versions of the minutes were presented here.

I told you I'd give you my understanding if you tell me the source of your confusion.   

Do you want to know or no?