The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I posted this on another thread, but I believe they believe (like Woody Hayes and te pass) that its more likely that bad stuff can happen.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

When you wrote that did you have any particular club in mind or were you thinking and speaking generally?

[Keith OHalloran]

TEPaul,
Being snowbound may be making me dense, but I have to ask another question. On this thread, you have discussed an inability to divulge what is in the Goddard book, and even mentioned speaking to Intellectual property attorneys in that regard.
Yet you started another thread related to the history of Shinnecock and on that thread, you are able to reference the material in the book, and at one point you even seem to quote it.
What is your position? Can we ask questions about the book? I.E. How did it treat the situation where the USGA had a golfer registered from Shinnecock when Shinnecock itself does not have material to reflect that golfer had been there? Or is the book off limits?
Thanks Keith

[TEPaul]

Keith:

I'm glad you asked that. I've been trying to explain that on here for over a year or more but apparently I have not been successful in getting many to understand it. My position with Shinnecock and its Goddard book is the same as my position with some other clubs I've known well for years that include Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia, Shinnecock and a number of other clubs like that. Over the years they've shared some of their private club material with me. Most of this material is not in the public domain and they consider it to be private. I've spoken to all of them about it and their feeling has always been that I can talk about whatever I have read or whatever I have of this private material but they would prefer that I not scan it and post it onto a Internet website like this one. Of course sometimes it can get a bit hard to tell what is private club material and what is public domain material or basically considered to be, such as a club history book which has been sold publicly and so forth. Some of the latter is actually under copyright protection to the club but it has found its way on here in a scanned and copy form from others on this site who have come into possession of it. I have never done that primarily because I don't even know how to post copies on this website but even if I did know how I would not do it. But I have no restriction from any of these clubs about talking about what I know from any of this material and so if you have any questions on it I would be happy to answer them but I'm not going to copy it on here. Some on here have demanded I do that but I'm not going to do it. My philosophy is that if they want to read it personally or copy it for their own use or even challenge me on the validity and veracity of what I say about it on here they will need to make their own arrangements to do that with those clubs as I have over the years.

I hope that helps and clears up this seeming on-going misunderstanding and confusion.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tom,

I understand the delicate balancing act you are trying to pull off with respect to honoring the "privacy" of the material you were granted access to. 

However, it still leaves us in an unfortunate predicament when some evidence is uncovered that may APPEAR to contradict what you are relaying.  It's not a matter of questioning your veracity, but leaves things in a position where possible contradictions cannot be pursued for resolution. 

I'm not saying that any of us have a "right" to get that resolution - a private club has the right to keep this information as they wish.  But at the same time, the club does not have a right to be offended when people are making honest efforts (not wreckless or slanderous) to formulate opinions off of the information that is readily available.

It does not make sense to "summarily dismiss" some of the findings that David may have simply because it contradicts someone like Goddard, who had access to internal documents.  You alluded earlier to the fact that Goddard's book "corrected" or "clarified" previous Club Histories, presumably written by people who also had access to internal records - so it seems helpful to keep an open mind to any new information and see if it can be synthesized with whatever is already known.

Which is the biggest reason why I think it would be helpful to know what sources Goddard used.  If Goddard referenced an external newspaper article or public contemporary account in compiling his history, that would be very helpful to people trying to synthesize an understanding, especially if they had not come across it.  I fail to see how saying "Goddard used this public article dated December XX, XXXX" would have anything to do with sacrificing the privacy of the club's internal records.

If even that would still be considered a sacrifice of privacy, I suppose that is their right.  But like I stated earlier, it's not their right to be offended when people are doing the best they can with available information.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I had no particular club in mind, but any of the old line clubs probably face the possibility (even at 1% why would they bother?) of the IRS questioning their tax exempt status, a Martha Burk type activist trying to look into their membership practices, a newspaper using their history as an example of "class warfare", etc. 

I can see where it is not worth their risk to have someone like TMac or David Moriarity rifling through their records.  First, what standing or level of trust would any amateur historian have with these clubs?  Probably none, like it or not.  Second, and more practically speaking, if they give them complete access, they may write something they don't need to have written, and if they limit ceratain portions, they are open to natural questions of what are they hiding, just as you have been.

In all, I can see why private clubs generally like to lay low.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

When clubs publish and sell history books I don't see that as concealing their historical record.

Then why should any information regarding their history be deemed "top secret"

On the other hand, you just said above that you understand that most clubs do not want their private archives opened to public scrutiny, so how do you recommend I deal with my dilemma which you also say you understand?

Quite simply, I would suggest that you don't respond to a thread where you know something is incorrect or inaccurate, where you can't offer source documentation to support your position because of the constraints that particular club has placed on you.

NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE is going to accept your "take my word for it, I've seen the documents" defense.

So,  If you're under a "GAG" order, don't say anything.

It's "THE" club's responsibility to set the record straight.

If they want to allow an inaccurate account of their history, that's their business.
IF they want to CORRECT an inaccurate account of their history, they can easily do so through emissaries such as yourself..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - forgive me if I misrepresent you, but I think you essentially meant that the Evidence David used to develop his treatise must be given credence unless contrary evidence is provided.  It's not enough to say "I have documentation that says otherwise, but I can't show it to you."  

Kevin,

That's correct

That statement may or may not be true, but it really doesn't help the discussion and can't be relied upon (except through Faith / Trust or the extent it is corroborated by other sources that are presented).  Which is why giving a Bibliography may be helpful, since it may help provide corroboration through external evidence that wouldn't be within the domain of "retaining privacy".

Agreed


I agree with Philip that it is difficult to provide a complete history without access to internal Club Documents, but their absence shouldn't categorically refute David's findings based on secondary information.  

Agreed

I've been an auditor for almost 20 years, and there are many different types of evidence available when I'm completing an audit, whether it be inquiry, corroboration, direct confirmation, etc.  I imagine there is a corollary to the types of evidence used by historians (Primary Club Records vs. Contemporary Accounts / Other External Accounts).

To an auditor, direct confirmation signed by a customer is the ideal evidence to support an accounts receivable balance.  But if I don't have those, I don't just pack up shop and say I can't prove anything.  I have a list of alternative procedures I can perform, which, while not ideal, can still provide me the evidence I need.


If you want to provide a disclaimer that David's conclusions were reached without reference to Internal Club Documents - Fine.  Duly noted.

OK, but, remember, the club documents may or may not be as extensive as David's research documents

But that doesn't mean his conclusions aren't supportable based on the available evidence (or available AND disclosed evidence).  You want to challenge his on some assumptions made or interpretations - Fine, have a healthy debate about it.

But this notion of "blanket dismissal" because there was no access granted or requested to Club Records is oversimplified nonsense.

Agreed

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I think it was Phil Young who said that it was "ideal" to have the club records, but not absolutely necessary.  Who could disagree with that?

I don't think there should be any blanket dismissal of David's theories, but also don't think they can be given much credence either, if we know contemporaneous documents exist but we haven't used them.

I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public?  If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?

You say club documents may not be as extensive as David's material.  That is true enough, as many have been lost in fires, etc.  But when available, I believe they should be used as an important part of any club history.  After all, they were written specifically to record what actually happened, albeit they can be maddeningly vague, since club secretaries often think that its only the current members who need to know.

In short, it's David posting the alternate theory, not TePaul.  To say TePaul has the obligation to refute with more new facts doesn't sound right to me.  Its David's (or anyone's) obligation to present a reasonably thought out position, no?  I don't know of any new historical position/work that is presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise.  I tend to think its the other way around.  And, while I am not defending TePaul's sometimes boorish behavior, if David wants to put work out there for vetting, he should have a thicker skin.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't think there should be any blanket dismissal of David's theories, but also don't think they can be given much credence either, if we know contemporaneous documents exist but we haven't used them.

Patrick
It appears there is one person who accepts TEP's "take my word for it, I've seen the documents" defense.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I accidentally posted this over in the Myopia thread.  Its not worth a double post, but just in case you missed it there.  While being pithy in my remarks below, I think the real problem with your post is found in our discussion of black/white thinking.  In this case, its "if you don't agree with me, you agree with TePaul" when in reality, I may only agree with TePaul slightly more than I agree with you.  Or, that if I don't accept David's theories completely, that it constitutes a blanket dismissal of his theories.

And as background, on this thread, I haven't even taken the time to read the details over and over to get it clear in my mind.  As mentioned above, somehow I must have thought your last comment was based on my comments and those of TePaul on Myopia.  I do understand that he is taking a similar position on Shinny.

Even with that said, is it really a stretch to ask David to take responsibility for his own writing and background?  Is everything wrong in the world TePaul's fault?  Here is the post on the Myopia thread, in case you care:

You are either tweaking me in your not so pithy way, misrepresenting me, or just plain dumb as a stump. I doubt its the latter, really, but just in case, I will type very slowly on this post to help you read it more clearly! 

I do not believe you need to take either the Weeks history or TePaul's take on it as gospel.  However, I do believe that contemporaneous club records exist, based on TePaul's telling us he has seen them briefly.  I do not think he is lying about that.  So, even though we don't know what they say, we do know with reasonable certainty that they exist.

So my question is, if you and DM are going to publicly proffer another theory of the design of MH, and do so knowing that you are NOT including information from all contemporaneous records know to exist, how can you say that is good historical research, and/or that your conclusion is sound?  In essence, I am agreeing with you that we need to have all the sources at our disposal, which we simply don't have.

Simply put, it may not be reckless research, but it is certainly incomplete research, and not worth 37 pages of vicious debate.

BTW, as to being confused as to what Willie did at Myopia, I think we all are.  There is no real record of what he did do there, to the level of specificity any of us would like.  However, I will say that the recently posted article from 1897 expansion of Myopia states that it will take from July to next spring to open the new links, which somewhat discounts your theory that courses in that era just took a few weeks to open for play.  Granted, the first links in 1894 were described as a improvised course, and the later version was supposed to be permanent, which may have taken more time.......

I don't recall, but did you post the actual articles that you say were your sources for that claim, or did we just have to take your word for it that you had read them somewhere?

Again, happy new year to you and yours.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer

Please remove that post immediately above. It has no place here.   This thread is about Shinnecock, not Myopia. 

[Kevin Lynch]

TMac,

I accidentally posted this over in the Myopia thread.  Its not worth a double post, but just in case you missed it there.  While being pithy in my remarks below, I think the real problem with your post is found in our discussion of black/white thinking.  In this case, its "if you don't agree with me, you agree with TePaul" when in reality, I may only agree with TePaul slightly more than I agree with you.  Or, that if I don't accept David's theories completely, that it constitutes a blanket dismissal of his theories.

Jeff,

I already posted some thoughts on the Myopia Thread - I won't try to repeat it here.

In many ways, I think we're talking about the same danger - "black/white" thinking.  On the Myopia thread, I also discussed the dangers of "presumed motivation" which is somewhat related.

I'm not sure if you're confusing some of my comments with TMac, because I think I was using the phrase "blanket dismissal" (but I don't claim exclusivity over it).  

I'm concerned a little about the concept of "blanket dismissal" on two different fronts:

First, there's TEPaul's "blanket dismissal" of David's work, which is motivated more by personal disdain, rather than the quality of David's research.  Normally, I wouldn't want to presume motivation, but since TEPaul has publicly asserted his motivation on several occasions, I feel comfortable assigning motive.  TEPaul could and should be able to "challenge" David's work without it being deemed a 'blanket dismissal" (and it would be great to have constructive challenges from someone with his experience).  Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to distinguish given the evidence of personal animus.    In some ways, it is ironic.  By making his personal disdain and desire to harass David so public, TEPaul has dismissed himself as an effective "critic." Rather, his comments now get relegated to "consider the source / grain of salt" status (some of those "self-inflicted wounds" I discussed in another thread).  It's a real loss, and one that could be repaired if TEPaul would drop the blatantly personal crap.

(In the interest of fairness, conversely, I feel that David does himself a disservice on those occasions when he tries a "blanket dismissal" of questions raised by Mike Cirba with charges of "lapdog" and other unnecessary personal stuff.  That ties in a little to your "thicker-skin" suggestion).

The second type of "blanket dismissal" is somewhat related to your concerns over incompleteness of research (i.e. your question - "can it be "good" or "sound" if it's incomplete).  That's what I was addressing in my response at the Myopia thread.  However, to summarize my thoughts, my answer is "Yes, it still can be good, but it's a lot harder."

[Kevin Lynch]

In short, it's David posting the alternate theory, not TePaul.  To say TePaul has the obligation to refute with more new facts doesn't sound right to me.  Its David's (or anyone's) obligation to present a reasonably thought out position, no?  I don't know of any new historical position/work that is presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise.  I tend to think its the other way around.  And, while I am not defending TePaul's sometimes boorish behavior, if David wants to put work out there for vetting, he should have a thicker skin.

Jeff,

I'm not sure Patrick was saying TEPaul was under an "obligation" to refute with new facts.  I think Patrick was suggesting that TEPaul can't say "I know you're wrong based on things I can't reveal to you."

I think the suggestion is that we can't have these discussions focused on the pieces of evidence that "might exist" but won't be revealed.  Rather, the focus needs to be on the information that is available and used as the basis for David's conclusions. 

If you don't think there is enough evidence available to make conclusions, then say so.  Or if you think some of the interpretations are off, then address that.  If there's enough available evidence, you may be able to conclude that a position is reasonable (subject to the possibility that additional information may be considered if made available).

But if we start from a position that David's conclusions "CAN'T" be reasonable because it hasn't encompassed ALL information, that doesn't sound right to me.  It would be different if David IGNORED contrary evidence that was presented to him, but that's not the case.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I think it was Phil Young who said that it was "ideal" to have the club records, but not absolutely necessary.  Who could disagree with that?

I don't think there should be any blanket dismissal of David's theories, but also don't think they can be given much credence either, if we know contemporaneous documents exist but we haven't used them.

Jeff, I would disagree.  If David's position is supported by source and/or contemporaneous documentation the club records may or may not be relevant.  You can't dismiss David's premise if he's provided reliable documentation.

I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public?  If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?

You say club documents may not be as extensive as David's material.  That is true enough, as many have been lost in fires, etc.  But when available, I believe they should be used as an important part of any club history.  After all, they were written specifically to record what actually happened, albeit they can be maddeningly vague, since club secretaries often think that its only the current members who need to know.

Jeff, If you can't get "access" to them, you can't use them.
That's not David's fault.

If David provides documentation to support his position, NOT having access to club records doesn't automatically make his premise null and void.

In short, it's David posting the alternate theory, not TePaul.  To say TePaul has the obligation to refute with more new facts doesn't sound right to me. 

I NEVER said that. that's your faulty reading of my posts.

What I said is that you/we can't accept a refutation of David's premise based on a claim that someone has seen the club records and the club records contradict David's premise, but, the club records can't be made public.
1  The club records could be wrong.
2  The claimant could have misread or misinterpreted them

 Its David's (or anyone's) obligation to present a reasonably thought out position, no?  I don't know of any new historical position/work that is presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise.  I tend to think its the other way around.  And, while I am not defending TePaul's sometimes boorish behavior, if David wants to put work out there for vetting, he should have a thicker skin.

Jeff, the exchanges have gone far beyond the realm of passionate debate to unpleasant personal attacks, and both parties are guilty.
David's position seems simple to me.  He's presented a premise, provided supporting documentation, welcomes challenge, provided the challenge is substantiated with reliable documentation.

I don't think thats too much to ask.

And, while I'd certainly prefer to have them, don't forget, club records have a history of being flawed or incomplete.

[Kirk Gill]

As is typical, I'm a late arriver to this thread.

David, I read your piece and it is interesting. The similarity in names is obviously an issue, and you've obviously found a potential crack in the accepted history that is worth exploring. I would of course agree that as a person interested in history, you have to understand that if you are contradicting accepted beliefs, there are those who will hold you to a high standard in your findings. You are providing some evidence that supports your conclusions, and that evidence cannot be dismissed. I found the language you used in this piece to be much more satisfactory than in the Missing Faces of Merion (my opinion) because your logical leaps are tighter and the tenor of your conclusions is less absolute. The evidence you present from contemporaneous accounts is on point. The question is whether or not the accounts provided are absolutely persuasive, and because there are other accounts that differ, there are those who can and will continue to disagree with you.

You can't dismiss what Jeff said earlier on this thread, regardless of the fact that he happened to be talking about Myopia. The issue he raises has nothing to do with any specific club, but with general realities of being an historical researcher. You can't pick and choose your sources, without being accused of bias. There's no reason I can think of to ignore the club itself when researching its history, or to just dismiss an accepted club history because it doesn't agree with what you find, or because debunking accepted histories is in any way a goal.

What you don't want to do, especially when you've got a good, interesting story to tell, is to risk marginalizing your work or yourself because you don't follow through and consider all sources. It is up to you to make your evidence persuade. I'm easily persuaded, because I've never read Goddard, or any other Shinnecock history. But there are a lot of people who know a lot more than I do about it, and have a more personal stake in it than I do, and they'll be harder to persuade.

Most interesting thread, David, thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Good morning. I must say I am somewhat surprised at your responses, but at the same time, it seems I am one of the few here who would ask if an internet discussion board needs a higher standard of posting when presenting what is billed as a historical treastise, even if disguised as a discussion topic.  I guess I am wrong on that, at least by overall opinion here, but do appreciate Kirk's support!

Of course, a "new" club history absent of club records COULD BE totally accurate, but I believe the chances of that are much less than otherwise.  IMHO, dismissing them reduces chances substantially, and while not a black and white issue, in most cases, I would believe that the chances are reduced so far as to make the endeavor basically worthless.  Plus, a lot of this is spin anyway from both sides. 

Take authorized and unauthorized biographies, for example.  Some folks will believe only the authorized versions, with its access to actual records of the president or celebrity.  Others will tend to believe only the unauthorized versions, gleamed from outside sources, because they don't accept the spin of the authorized, more documented version.  Is that what is happening between TePaul and the DM/TMac tandem?

And while many club histories have flaws, I am not so sure the club records have displayed that tendency, although some get lost and others still need translation and interpretation.

Its all interesting theoretical discussion to me, even void of the details of each club.  And again, I do admit I am still sort of mixing the situation with Myopia and Shinny here, which isn't fair to this discussion topic and David, so I will bow out of this one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40861736/ns/us_news/

Not really on topic, but a current example that might have relevance.  While many reports had the then NM governor offering to pardon Billy the Kid, they searched the actual govt records and couldn't find any real documentation that he did, despite many outside reports that he did.

This just illustrates that there is often the "official" recorded history and the outside history of a particular case.  Legends do emerge over time, of course.  But those in official capacities (like TePaul as USGA archivist) would tend to follow the official record in making any changes to historical view, while others are more free to speculate as to their veracity and use other sources.

I guess legend does become part of history, and can be debated openly by anyone, and no one else can stop it.  But, if a club decides to write or rewrite their history, what sources would they trust most if issuing the offical club history?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Part of the problem is that David is being chastized for not obtaining source documentation from the club he's writing about.

Some of those chastizing him would have us believe that if David had only dialed up the club they would have accepted him with open arms and placed the source documentation at his disposal.

Others chastizing him would have us believe that if David had only worked through them, he could have obtain all of the information that was necessary to complete his work.

I reject both of those premises.

In Cancer research, and I guess in other forms of research, teams work independent of one another, pursuing their particular research path.
Sometimes, but not often, the independent parties collaborate, pooling the results and knowledge in an attempt to springboard further along the discovery process..

Would Merion and Shinnecock have opened their archives to David ?

I don't think there was a snowball's chance in HELL of that happening, so please, let's dismiss that fantasy.

Could David have worked through TEPaul, Wayne Morrison and others ?

Possibly, but, I believe that personality conflicts precluded that happening a long while ago.

So, with direct access to Merion and Shinnecock's archives not even a remote possibility , asking David to channel his efforts through Wayne Morrison and TEPaul seems equally impossible.

Having said all that, what's wrong with independent research ?

Secondly, think about this.  If David was working with a specific club, what if he came to discover information that conflicted with the accepted club history.  What kind of obligation would he be under not to publish that information ?,

AND, please don't say that he wouldn't be under any political pressure to hold back those findings.

Wilson's alleged trip PRIOR to the design of Merion would have presented an enormous conundrum.

I don't think this issue has a simple solution, and certainly not a solution of, "if you'd only come to us.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I understand and have previously posted that I am pretty sure people like David will not be given access to many if any clubs history.  I have no fantasy that this will happen.  If it ever would have, the behavior of DM on this site ended it.  And to be fair, I wonder if TePaul will face some limitations on access in the future access given clubs will gradually find out how and how often he participates here.  He has a bigger dilemma than Dave or TMac.

That said, my question still stands.  What is the value of a presumably serious historical piece that ignores some of the known record and makes conclusions without it?  Should it even be presented as such?  It seems to me that if I would have presented a research piece to a teacher and admitted that I didn't get around to looking at some important documents because they were too hard to find, my grade wouldn't have been very high!

I do understand that this is a discussion board and David should be free to post his theories as discussion points.  We can all feel free to discuss them, and I think even TePaul recognizes that as much as clubs might prefer the old way, its a new world out there and they will have to figure out how to deal with guys like us. 

I posted the link to the whole bruhaha about pardoning Billy the Kid this morning just to show that some of the fascination of history is the mystery, the conflicting opinions, etc.  Someone is always passing down legends, which is what DM and TMac are trying to say in this case that clubs do.  However, the official decision on pardoning BK today was the absence of any official documentation of a deal with the governor, while the public outvoted the current gov in approving the pardon.  Tough issues and maybe similarities to discussions here.

More specifically to your question, I don't think the political pressure would be the same at every club.  We tend to portray old line clubs as a monlith (not too much different than "far right wingers" or some such.  But every club was different.

Short version, I don't think there is a simple solution, or a simple answer, other than I think David was right to put that disclaimer in his Merion piece, and could consider doing that moving forward if he starts another search for the truth somewhere else. 

Happy New Year!

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I must disagree with your perception as you stated, "That said, my question still stands.  What is the value of a presumably serious historical piece that ignores some of the known record and makes conclusions without it?  Should it even be presented as such?  It seems to me that if I would have presented a research piece to a teacher and admitted that I didn't get around to looking at some important documents because they were too hard to find, my grade wouldn't have been very high!"

That is not what happened here. Davaid didn't reach a conclusion but rather theorized an explanation for SUPPOSED discrepncies that he has come across to the accepted club history. That can be shown with how he closed out what he wrote with his statement, "Is my version correct?   Who knows, but it is the best I could come up with based upon what I could find."

If I was his teacher before I would have graded his paper i would have asked him why he coukld find nothing else. Being told that he is prevented from both access to the actual documents and even the written document that explained the accepted conclusions, I would have given him an "A" for his work. Now that doesn't mean that I would agree with his theory, but that I would view it as an outstanding product based solely upon what was available to both he and myself as his teacher because the same information would be blocked from my view as well.

My sole point here is that there is nothing wrong with the speculation and theory. David won't be given access, but then again 99% of all legitimate historians would not either. It is the rare one that is. Club's don't owe access to their records to anyone from outside their club and many times don't even allow access to board minutes and documents to many members.

Cultivating and protecting those rare relationships that allow it for an individual is most important. The real bottom line is that there will always be questions to what someone writes. At some point actual faith in the veracity of the writer and what he has written needs to be shown for there will be no more access given...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Thanks for that explanation, even if I wished you had been my teacher on a few occaisions!

I do realize I am being somewhat unfair to David on this thread, especially, since I am sort of mixing up this and Myopia because I answered a TMac pithy quote here as well as on the Myopia thread.

I do understand that its a discussion board, and it is a place for open discussion on controversial topics.  I have always said the strength of these boards and the weakness is both that these discussions shouldn't be limited or directed as to where they go.

Its a fine line in some cases, but I think you are right.  This is an appropriate place for speculation.  Maybe my real beef is the way some, if not all of us, get into such heated discussions.  You and I are both contributors from time to time, and I think most would vote both DM and TePaul as the biggest agitators.  Sure, our hands aren't clean either!  It just seems that we shouldn't get so embrolied, but maybe we need personality transplants rather than a change to any methodolgy on these boards.

Cheers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

If someone, DM, TM, TEP or anyone else puts forth a premise, supported by differering degrees of verifiable information, the conclusions they draw may or may not be accurate.

Once someone puts forth a reasoned premise, it's open for DISCUSSION.

No one ever conveyed infallibility to any premise presented.

If others have information that contradicts or refutes the premise, they should present the counter argument.
If others have information that solidifies the premise, they should present the supporting  information.

Moriarty and MacWood aren't to be treated as subserviant, requiring approval from others prior to presenting their case.
They're free to research and structure any premise that's to their liking.

Please understand, that I've had some passionate, if not heated exchanges with both David and Tom on a number of threads.
But, their position will rise or fall based upon the substance of their facts and reasoning.

I thought some of their premises were well researched and well reasoned.
That doesn't mean that they're flawless.

If there are flaws let them be identified, substantiated and reasoned.

Then, all can make up their own minds as to the relative merits of a particular premise.

Not having club records as a part of their premise may constitute a flaw based on the content of the club's records, OR, the club records may be irrelevent.

As an example, I would cite Wilson's alleged trip to the UK, PRIOR to the design of Merion.

Why would David have to have access to the club records to substantiate his position that Wilson NEVER sailed until after the course was designed ?   ?   ?

Is his premise NOT VALID because he didn't have access to the club records ?

Or, Is his premise VALID, in spite of the club's records ?  ?  ?

We now know, through David's independent research, that the club's records were wrong on this issue.

Think about it.

P.S.. Happy and Healthy New Year to everyone and their families

[John Mayhugh]

Philip and Patrick,
Thanks for the last posts each of you made (#172 & 174 respectively).  I completely agree and wish I could have written those.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I just saw this response, and I did think about it.

David was correct on the Wilson trip.  The ship manifests were official records of another type.  I think official records are very useful to historic research, whether coming from the club, other sources (tax records, land deeds, etc.)

On this specific point, I think the Wilson item wasn't an actual premise.  I think he was researching and made a discovery.  From that, and other research, he developed several premises, we did have notable debate, and all came to their own conclusions, without a firm consensus, and certainly not agreement from David or TMac (who drew his own conclusions that differ signifigantly with the rest of us)

I believe that David was right on that point, not proven right in other of his premises, while some are still open to interpretion. I believe club records were of varying help in determining each of those scenarios.

Perhaps my logic is flawed, but in general, I think the best interpretations would ideally have the club records.  Of course, every case is definitely different and no general rule can cover every situation that will arise, just as your pointing out one example doesn't indicate the overall picture either.  As the old saying goes, the exception may very well prove the rule, no?