Kevin,
From my perspective, I think you make a legitimate point. I have read recently that one of the weak points of human thinking is the tendency to make every thing black and white to make it easier to understand. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, and at least for Myopia, TePaul has come to that way of thinking, and implies he has shared that with at least some Myopia members.
In fact, given what we do know publicly, it would be hard to say that the committee and Campbell didn't have something to do with it. And given what we know we don't know (i.e., the existence of club records we don't have access to) I do think all of us amateur historians need to reserve the right to change our judgement, as David did in his original piece on Merion, which was very respectful in tone . How can we not if we know we don't have all the info at our disposal?
Regarding the "black/white" perception - I couldn't agree with you more. One need only listen to our nation's political discourse to understand the fallacy of oversimplified rhetoric when it comes to solving complex problems that need a whole lot more nuance than dueling soundbites. False dichotomies and intentional polarization of complex issues set me off (but I'll calm down now).
I'm glad to hear others chime in on the charges of "recklessness" made by TEPaul. It seems pretty obvious that TEP knows what buttons to push on David and I find that many of the recent comments made by TEP are motivated solely by doing that for some immature achievement of satisfaction (e.g. comments using mentally challenged, disbarment, Child's Table, etc.).
At a certain point, David has to be able to ignore the pettiness and truly consider the source. Once TEPaul publicly stated his mission was to harass and defame David, any of his opinions on David's work have to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt. Unfortunately, like I said earlier in the thread, there is some self-inflicted damage being done to reputations, and it is unfortunate.
I think what would help David move past the visceral reactions is to have others chime in and challenge some of the blanket assertions of "recklessness" (like you did). I think having Pat Mucci chime in on the Shinnecock thread regarding the "stalemate" position we often find ourselves in is helpful and also disarms charges of recklessness.
If David was willing to change his thinking based on newly available evidence at Merion, then I think that is the opposite of reckless and shows a larger respect for "getting it right" than "winning." If TEPaul isn't willing to consider that in his comments, then I think it reflects more on him than David.
Hopefully things will be able to calm down a bit and we can have some constructive dialogs, even if it means we have to acknowledge the inherent limitations that the "non-insider" will face.