[JESII]

No David...if you're going to state that the accepted record is pathetic and totally inaccurate regarding specifically underlined sections the burden of proof is on YOU (you and Tom M) to prove it...or you can admit that you cannot prove this specific point is meaningfully inaccurate and we'll move on to #3. Your choice.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

He did admit in Post 149 that he couldn't be expected to prove his point.  How dare you ask?  It is apparently okay for him to ask everyone else to prove points, though. 

David, what part of Mars were you born on, man?  Sorry for the diss, bud.  But holy crap Batman, this is ridiculous.  Everything you say in #149 can be applied equally to you!

The reasons for this are manyfold, not the least of which is that it is almost impossible to prove certain types of claims to be false. 

That is what we are saying about your claims.....but just because we can't prove them false, doesn't mean they are true either.

No matter what we came up with you could always speculate as to some other way that it could have happened. 

Which is exactly what you do daily......you cloud it as fact, because you have selected what is important and what should be ignored as evidence, "logic as to what happened, etc."

I'm not saying that Tolhurst should have backed up his claims like he would have in an academic work, but I am saying to demand absolute proof of every single false detail before you doubt him is unreasonable, especially because we now know that substantial portions of Tolhurst are wrong.

More of your double negative logic, which is no logic at all.  Tollhurst was writing a quick read.  You have pointed out a few errors, yes.  But the debate is still that you feel they are meaningful, others think they are in keeping with his intended audience.  If he didn't meet your needs, I am sorry.  And it has nothing to do with Merion's actual course evolution, other than the Wilson trip error.

Since Tolhurst didn't meet the burden, TEPaul was supposed to doing it for him. 

According to who Tom 'Train Schedule" MacWood?  And TePaul is "supposed to be doing" what at the request of whom?  Pretty galling that you think you can demand any of us to do anything, isn't it?  Lastly, I truly think TePaul and others have met your call to vet your IMO piece in prevous threads.  At least we could vote on it.

A possible scenario is that Tolhurst realized that it didn't really make sense for the club to have been trying to buy a site that was too small, so he had them trying to buy the neighboring sites instead.

Let me see, you think I am speculating because I think Francis words have some meaning, because he was there, but you can speculate that Tollhurst made up a story about neighboring sites? 

David, it just appears to me that you really won't let this end and its very unpleasant for me, and I don't mind saying so. Yeah, I know, I could go away. My fear is another 1498 folks will disappear, too, for fear this website will just be a cartoon of its former self.

And, we enjoy it until the Merion threads.  This is just about you trying to force all of us into thinking you and you alone have enough logical deductive powers to figure out Merion, and who knows what else.  I guess I am asking what it would take to end this unwinnable debate.  I know there have been some voluntary bans on this site, and I am thinking its time to go that route again.  I am willing to go too, if I am deemed so unpleasant and such a one note Sally that I have lost any value here.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

Even in that raggedy red tartan kilt of a skirt you wear at ASGCA meetings your legs just aren't good enough for anyone to confuse you with a "one note Sally." Or as your hero who you quoted from might have said, "Holy Cross-dressers Batman!"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

My singing is so bad, I once auditioned for San Francisco's least favorite bar band, "The Whistling Straights."

I don't even sing in the shower, but in reality, it is Mr. Paul Cowley who has a Tartan Kilt.

[DMoriarty]

No David...if you're going to state that the accepted record is pathetic and totally inaccurate regarding specifically underlined sections the burden of proof is on YOU (you and Tom M) to prove it...or you can admit that you cannot prove this specific point is meaningfully inaccurate and we'll move on to #3. Your choice.

Jim,  I never called Tollhurst pathetic.  Nor did i offer underlines of sentences or partial sentences.  I understand Tolhurt's purpose and how these things usually work, and I also have an idea of why and how he made many of the mistakes he made.  I don't blame him for it or condemn him, but there are many inaccuracies and treating his book as gospel is a big mistake. The reason I say that there are inaccuracies in that much of the passage does not comport to the historical record.

Also, Jim, I've already explained that I don't think this fragment-by-fragment method is the right approach and that it doesn't capture the inaccuracies,  I'm more comfortable with focusing on his main points or at least paragraphs.  For example, Tolhurst wrote . . .
 
"In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket club formed the Merion Cricket GC Association to examine the problem presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made theri course obsolete. The moving spirits of this organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lelsey, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh.

They explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course so that it could be lengthened. However, no such land was available. They eventually settles on a 120-acre tract, located a little south of the Phila and Western Railroad tracks on both sides of Ardmore Avenue. The golf association bought the property and leased it back to the Cricket Club. Much of the land had been part of a William Penn grant. Since 1744, it had belonged to the Johnson family. Originally a farm, the place was now neglected. On the property stood a stone farmhouse, built in 1824, and large bank barn.

The Annual Report of 1910 informed Merion Cricket Club member of these developments.

For reasons described above, there are inaccuracies in what seem to be Tolhurst's three major points.  Tolhurt's representation of the reasons for Merion's move are inaccurate; Tohurst's description of the formation and purpose of the MCCGA are inaccurate; Tolhurst's description of the purchase is incomplete and contains some minor inaccuracies.  I've offered evidence of the actual reason for the move, as explained by Merion's Board; as well as evidence that MCCGA was not created to study the Haskell or to find land, but that it had been around for at least a dozen years and seems to have been an association within MCC of golfing members.

Not sure what else you could expect. 
______________________________________________________

Jeff,
Ideally Tolhurst would have backed up his claims so we've had some idea of why he claimed what he claimed.   No such problem exists with my essay.   I explain everypoint and offer evidence for all the analysis.  In other words, the burden is most definitely mine.

TEPaul claimed he would demonstrate that each underlined point was meaningfully accurate.  He even tried, if you want to call it that.  But to do so he pretty much had to ignore the points all together. 

Jeff, you don't seem to have any interest in a meaningful or civil dialogue.  My essay didn't convince you and I can live with that.   But hanging around to shout this again and again seems rather pointless to me.   As does repeatedly telling everyone that we need to stop talking about it because you have made up your mind. 

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Forgive my bluntness, but here goes.  I really don't think one can litigate historical research.  I have a hunch that your message would be better received if a different, more "academic" approach was used.    Put aside your inner litigator and go back to your earlier college days when you needed to defend your theses.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If any new facts came up or out, rather than my own vomit, I would love to talk about Merion's creation.  

At one point on the old threads, TePaul was going to send some young kid down to archives in DC to see if the routing or maps Wilson mentioned in some of the Piper and Oakley letters stored there might show up.  To my knowledge, he never did that. Lord knows he could afford either the time himself or the money for others to do that, and it would be a greater contribution than a point by point rehash of what has already been exposed on the Merion story.

And, not to be harsher than necessary, but as I have hinted, I am just not sure your black and white, innocent of guilty thought processes serve your analysis well.  If we accept Tollhurst's limitations, we accept it as "gospel."  I for one do no such thing.  Nor do I agree with your implication that if Tollhurst got one thing wrong, we have to doubt the whole thing, a la the bloody glove or Mark Furman. 

As Dan aptly and succinctly notes, you seem to be trying to litigate this, and you would find better success, IMHO, with a softer approach, if you are capable.  Even as a litigator style approach, I disagree that you have met any burden in your "logical arguments" regarding documents we know of.  Your arguments are based soley on the documents you pick and choose and how you choose to interpret them.  When you dismiss Francis words completely, and he was there, what credibility is there in that?

As a last bit of critique, I note that you mention my belief about your essay, whereas earlier you argued loud and hard that this thread was ONLY about Tollhurst and his inaccuracies.  Your post above hints that it really is about more than answering Jim Sullivan's questions, and in reality, how could it not?  You chastise Mike for looking ahead and at the same time predict that this thread was logically moving to discuss April 1911, when a few posts before you suggested it should be limited only to Tollhurst.

IMHO your arguments go all over the board to fit your preconcieved notions.  I could go one with the flaws in your basic approach, but there is no need.  I hate to be repetitive any more than I have been.

I haven't really said we should stop because I have made up my mind.  I would say we stop because we have no new facts to discuss - just your opinions.......I guess I just wonder why its pointless for any of us to shout again and again, but in your double standard world, shouting your POV again and again is perfectly acceptable?

Proofing this, I understand it has zero chance of impacting you.  So be it.  I bid you good night and do hope to meet you one day.  As i have said, I have heard nothing but good things about your non gca.com personna.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom M,

I think it's important to realize that the task is yours to prove those underlined sections are in fact false. Tolhurst wrote them, you disagree with them, prove it! I am willing to go through your post one by one...and point #1 was conceded (by me and only me) out of exhaustion, not belief...but MY concession stands.

Point #2 - How can you prove that they did not explore acquiring more land around the Haverford site?

Tom? David?

Jim
I'm sorry, we're talking about documenting history not a school yard challenge. Its not my job to disprove some idiotic claim, that is the job of the person making the claim or those who believe it to be true. In documenting history if someone cannot support their historic claim the claim is rejected. Their is no support for Tolhurst's claim that they tried to purchase land surrounding land they didn't even own, but tried unsuccessfully buy. That is just goofy, but I'm sure you can come up with some far fetched scenario that you won't be able to prove either.

[JESII]

Tom,

Why don't you ask him yourself...your clearly much closer to him than the rest of us...

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Here are the minutes which explain the chain of events. I don't see anything about looking to purchase land outside the land they never owned and were unable to purchase.

[JESII]

Those are not "club minutes"...big difference...I'd venture to say meaningfully inaccurate...

[DMoriarty]

Jeff

Your posts are nothing but diatribes about how much my approach bugs you.  I am sure you would get some readership if you started a separate thread on that topic and perhaps you should.  It might be theraputic even.   Perhaps you all should start a support group, online or off.  But I'm here to discuss GCA, particularly Tolhurst's account.  I couldn't be more uninterested in your opinion about me or my approach.  But if you ever come up with anything productive, relevant, substantive, and topical to say about Tolhurst's account,  I'm all ears.  

Dan,

Thanks for the unsolicited advice.   Do you have anything at all to contribute relating to the topic before us?   Or are you just here to discuss my approach as well?  

Jim,

Is there still more to be discussed about those first two or three paragraphs, or is it time to move on?

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Yep, I'm just here to discuss your approach.  You're just mean to people, and it's really sad.   I guess I was just brought up differently.

And with that borrowing from Harry Kallas, "I'm outta here."  Best of luck, sir.

[JESII]

David,

What's the rush?

I know I conceeded the financial motivation for the move, but how about the establishment of MCCGA? They do speak in some of these pieces about forming a corporation to buy the land, don't I remember that it was in fact MCCGA that they formed for that purpose? Isn't it most likely that the MCCGA you refer to (still have not produced by the way...) was simply in intra-club committee/organization for the golfers as distinguished from the other activities at the club?

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Its not my job to disprove some idiotic claim, that is the job of the person making the claim or those who believe it to be true. In documenting history if someone cannot support their historic claim the claim is rejected."

Tom,

Like perhaps your claim that Barker designed Merion because trains from NYC to Georgia ran through Philly?  I actually don't recall you ever posting that train schedule anyway to support your claim.  To be honest, that one will always lower the TMac credibility ratio in my mind, especially when he tries to take the high road on the issue of others and their need to really, really research their claims.  Especially in light of the fact that you and David suggest that enough is wrong with Tollhurst that we should doubt ALL he says. 

C'mon guys. You are making it too easy for the rest of us to poke fun at ya. 

But, seriously folks, we did have a discussion here once about how this place fits in with generally accepted historic and peer review in the "real" historian community.  I can't recall the details if any that anyone was able to provide, but from memory, though, I doubt anyone here would be remotely considered a qualified historian, with generally recognized methods.

And the funniest thing is, DM calls for TePaul to vet his piece.  I think DM makes a pretty good effort to try to do things right and diligently, and frankly don't think TePaul would be the one he would want to vet it.  If it really is the work of the historian to get it right, maybe DM should find someone a little more independent in their thinking to vet the piece.  We know what the TePaul review would be.  David would have no chance to get a fair hearing on that one!  In essence, that is what happens here.

David, seriously, can you think of someone qualified to vet your piece?  An outside source from your detractors here might do a world of good in putting the piece in its proper perspective, no?  A new authoritative voice would be more productive than listening to guys like me and TePaul......

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

This is a GREAT point!!!

"seriously, can you think of someone qualified to vet your piece?  An outside source from your detractors here might do a world of good in putting the piece in its proper perspective...?"

You guys are big time into historical research.  If you guys really want to have your worked recognized as the truth, gospel, factual, I think it is vital to work with professional historians, PhD's in history, or something like that to verify the work and teach the process that is accepted by the historians of the world.

I don't know, but maybe someone on this site is a professional historian and/or knows one.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I wasn't going to comment, but your question to David about "vetting" causes me to comment.

You asked him, "David, seriously, can you think of someone qualified to vet your piece?  An outside source from your detractors here might do a world of good in putting the piece in its proper perspective, no?"

There is no one qualified to "vet" his piece. Not that there isn't anyone with the ability to do so from a writing and research status, but there is an inherent problem in attempting to do so that makes it impossible.

David's work is not a testable theory; it is a stated conclusion based upon statements that he accepts as facts. The problem that he has, and this is not meant as judgement of his work but rather as the identification of the problem making it impossible, is that he did not, has not and the person "vetting" would not have access to Merion's records and board minutes.

For example, I just finished a course evolution history of a major Tilly club and was granted complete, total and unfettered access to everything they had. It enabled me to put the hundreds of newspaper accounts and private documents into context and to answer every question that past researchers have had about the history of the club's course. In order to get this I had to agree that I would not publish or share any details and/or excerpts from their board minutes and internal documents. As a result, when a "Brief Course Evolution" of this course gets published in a coming issue of Tillinghast Illustrated I already know that a number of questions will be asked of me which I will not be allowed to provide details for in my answers. This "brief" evolution covers 20 pages whereas the actual comprehensive report consisted of 295. My work was definitely a one-time opportunmity that will not be granted to anyone else; or at least not for many years. Obviously then there can be no one who can "vet" what I have written. One can read it, accept its veracity on face value and on my honor as a researcher or they can disagree with it. There is no middle ground.

As no one will be allowed access to Merion's records and ALLOWED TO PUBLISH THEM, how can anyone possibly "vet" David's work? It can't be done. If those interested in discussing its merits and conclusions can do so in a diginified manner, then a lively and fruitful discussion could certainly result.

One other thing, I've noticed several comments in this and other Merion threads about building a "consensus" as a means of concluding what actually happened. In my opinion, in dealing with historical events and the reasons why decisions were made and things occurred, a "consensus" judgement is almost always incorrect. What happened, happened. A vote on the likelihood of what occurred years later simply cannot define what actually did...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillip,

I hesitated to post that there are no historians on this site, knowing that there are a few, like yourself.  You make some good points, including one I hinted at but didn't formulate.  If you are hired to write a club history of a Tillie course, you are expected to be both fair and balanced, but with some expectation of a positive attitude, or they wouldn't have hired you.

David and TePaul argue a lot about who has an agenda. I suspect both do, and both are understandable, but would affect the value judgements made. I think both may be incapable of making a true value judgement on Merion at this time, as human nature says we defend out positions when attacked, and no doubt, David in particular has been attacked!

I see what you mean on consensus.  Its sort of like passing the health care bill. An all private or a single payer system probably would have worked out best, but to get a bill passed, a conglomeration of things proposed by both sides got stuck in there.  Like many laws, I predict there will be less than stellar results as we live with what many in Congress could agree to reluctantly rather than have someone push through a highly idealized plan of any type.  (not an expert, and not wanting go get political, but trying to come up with an example.)

[TEPaul]

"David's work is not a testable theory; it is a stated conclusion based upon statements that he accepts as facts. The problem that he has, and this is not meant as judgement of his work but rather as the identification of the problem making it impossible, is that he did not, has not and the person "vetting" would not have access to Merion's records and board minutes."


Philip (and Jeff):


It may be true to say there is not a truly qualified historian on here to "vet" something like Moriarty's essay. I might question that to some extent because the obvious question is---Who qualifies as an historian and who actually makes a determination like that? No one goes to college and becomes accredited as an historian! Essentially historians are made via some process of general peer review and general acceptance of what they produce.

Of course, I have always maintained that Moriarty's essay on the early architectural history of Merion East is a complete joke to most all of us who actually know and have been intimately familiar with Merion's architectural history over the years.

However, your last sentence and your last point is undeniable----eg ANYONE who is intending to either research, analyze and write or anyone who is to analyze and "vet" someone's else's essay absolutely MUST FIRST have a very good working knowledge of Merion's records and board minutes.

At this time, I think there may be only one person on this website who has that and it is NOT Moriarty or MacWood. Neither has been to Merion's archives and THAT is a fundamental problem! The same may be true of just about most everyone else who has been contributing to these so-called "Merion threads." Strong emphasis, of course, on the word "most."

[TEPaul]

"Jim
Here are the minutes which explain the chain of events. I don't see anything about looking to purchase land outside the land they never owned and were unable to purchase."


MacWood:

First, as Sullivan said; that report or circular to the MCC membership is not board meeting minutes----it is simply a letter that went out to the MCC membership on Nov. 15, 1910.

Second, if you can not see that they refer to the prospective land at Ardmore then apparently you didn't read the second have of that letter to the membership very well or else you just don't read very well. The latter certainly has occured to me for the last "some" years!

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Please don't concede anything if you don't believe it.  If you want to disregard the Merion Board's unequivocal statement in the 1910 records, then so be it. We'll just have to disagree.

As for MCCGA let me first clarify what I think may have happened, based on reviewing Tolhurst, Heilman, and the November 1910 records. Tolhurst seems to have confused and/or combined the MCCGA with the Committee appointed to try to buy the old property or failing that to buy the new property.  I say this because his version doesn't quite gell with either Heilman or the November 1910 records.  Now as to your theory; TEPaul tried this rationale once, but I think he moved away from it.

Are you suggesting that while there may have been a previously existing Merion Cricket Club Golf Association at Merion, the club nonetheless created another Association and just happened to name that Association the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association? So there were two Merion Cricket Club Golf Associations? Is that what you are suggesting?  

If so, that would be pretty odd, wouldn't it?    Who were the members of this second Merion Cricket Club Golf Association? Also, consider this . . .
--  From what I can tell, the pre-existing MCCGA consisted of the golfing members of MCC.
--  According to the November 1910 records, the purchase of the land for the golf course would be paid for by an increase in dues on the golfing members.  
-- When MCC split up, it was the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, an association of golfing members, that went their own way.  

If you are correct, it looks to me like both the previously existing MCCGA and the MCCGA created to purchase the club not only shared the same name, they also shared the same membership.  This sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

[TEPaul]

"A new authoritative voice would be more productive than listening to guys like me and TePaul......"


Mr. Jeffrey Sir:

The fact is there is not a single person on this website who has anything like the familiarity with the Merion archives that two do on here. Wayne Morrison is one of them, but he has left this website, and he will not return and pretty much over threads like this one.  So that leaves one and judging from the ridiculuous futility of threads like this---eg like so many other threads before it---that pretty much leaves one.

As Philip Young said above-----eg any serious resercher, analyst, writer or "vettor" just must gain a very comprehensive knowledge of Merion's archives FIRST. Who on this website has ever done THAT or has that?  

[Tom MacWood]

This from the Philadelphia Inquirer 7/3/1898.

[TEPaul]

"As for MCCGA let me first clarify what I think may have happened, based on reviewing Tolhurst, Heilman, and the November 1910 records. Tolhurst seems to have confused and/or combined the MCCGA with the Committee appointed to try to buy the old property or failing that to buy the new property.  I say this because his version doesn't quite gell with either Heilman or the November 1910 records."


Moriarty:

THAT is really funny. WHAT YOU THINK??!!!!??  

What you do on this website and particularly on these Merion threads is something akin to the "Stockholm Syndrome" or probably more familiar to American's, the " Patty Hearst" phenomenon.

The more we tell you and the more we explain to you----the more you inch closer to the position we have always held and the more you try to make it look on here as if it was your own position and opinion.

But you seem to be getting closer to our position and opinion of what Merion's history really was with its MCGA and Tolhurst's explanation of it----eg the 1909 MCCGA was not the very same thing as what preceded it and it most certainly was not the same thing that was subsequent (1909) to it in Dec, 1910 which was actually a formal and second class Pennsylvania CORPORATION that was structured to essentially buy the MCC Ardmore land and lease it to MCC! Of course after being set up in Dec 1910, Lloyd (who was the president of the just formed MCCGA CORPORATION bought the land (and more) in his own (and his wife's) name, held it for over seven months (until July 1911) and then turned it over to the MCCGA Corporation that enacted a 99 years lease with MCC the same day.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Two corrections. First you stated, "It may be true to say there is not a truly qualified historian on here to "vet" something like Moriarty's essay." I disagree with that. There are more than a few on site who have the ability to "vet" David's work. The problem is not one of ability but one of access.

Second, you stated, "However, your last sentence and your last point is undeniable----eg ANYONE who is intending to either research, analyze and write or anyone who is to analyze and "vet" someone's else's essay absolutely MUST FIRST have a very good working knowledge of Merion's records and board minutes... At this time, I think there may be only one person on this website who has that..."

Again I must disagree. There is NO ONE on this site who has that because it is more than simply access and knowledge of the history, minutes and documents in Merion's archives. It is the ability to PUBLISH them in an open forum. Both you & Wayne have stated that you have not been allowed to do so, therefor despite someone's PERSONAL ability to access those records, their PRACTICAL ability to do so for the purpose of "vetting" David's work doesn't exist. If their was a mutual respect between David and a person who had PERSONAL access to the records then he might very well accept someone saying that he was incorrect in his conclusions, but since that person doesn't seem to exist on GCA then again, "Vetting" can't happen.

This is a also a two-edged sword since there isn't mutual respect, pronouncing him CORRECT based SOLELY on PERSONAL agreement cannot be accepted either. Proof demanded in one direction is demanded in both...

This doesn't mean that a klnowledge or understanding of what the Merion documents contain can't be used to discuss the various points in David's essay; they simply can't be accepted as being at the level of "expert" proof either in support or refuting what was written, though they may be more than acceptable for individuals to make personal judgements on...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()