[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Regarding your comment, "Some of you obviously realize it, but I hope the rest of you come to realize that whatever condemnation you have heaped on Tom must apply equally to Ran Morrissett, because he was apparently in on it the entire time.  I say this not to further condemn Ran, but to suggest that perhaps some of the comments might have been different had Ran been the one who came clean about the scam."

Since, as you stated, "I haven't communicated with Ran or Tom about any of this..." you obviously are very unaware that there are a number who HAVE taken Ran to task on this and CONTINUE TO DO SO and that they hold him equally responsible for this and have written such. An example of this is my own post just above yours. Of course I am certain that you simply ignored what I wrote.

Since you haven't spoken to Ran then you certainly are unaware how surprised and upset he was to learn that Tom had LIED about his phony article to someone who had approached him for the source. I know that this happened for a fact because it occurred during my phone conversation with him on Sunday morning. Imagine how upset he must be then to now learn that there are at least FOUR DIFFERENT WRITERS WHO ASKED HIM FOR THE REFERENCE SOURCE (this in direct contradiction to Tom's earlier statement that he only did it twice) and who he LIED to about its existence!

You obviously, in your attempt to justify and minimize what has been done and its serious breach of ethics, seem to forget how you vilified the Historian for Merion for allegedly not meeting up to the standards and ethics set by the American Historical Society for Historians and Archivists, a man who isn’t a member and who it turns out had done nothing wrong! Yet here we have Tom Macwood who has stated in the past to some, including me, that he considers publishing “In MY Opinion” pieces on gca.com to be the equal to publishing in any public venue including both books and magazines and  you would now denigrate the website by stating that he shouldn’t be held to the same standards as those you have publicly condemned?

Perhaps you can explain the justification for Tom Macwood for purposefully LYING about the “source” material to Neil Crafter when he approached him on it, something that he has admitted to? That was deliberate and extremely insulting to Neil. Perhaps you can explain the justification for why Tom lied to three other writers who did the same (these include the one he also admitted to lying to in 2009, the one who approached me 6 weeks ago and despite Tom’s belief is NOT the same one and now another who approached another well-known member of this site just yesterday on this)?  Perhaps you can explain why RAN, as I noted in my above post, referenced Tom’s article in his write-up of Yale as being TRUE and something that OTHER’S SHOULD REFER TO as such? Why the link back to that article suddenly stopped working on Dunday when it worked on Saturday? That definitely places his actions on a much different scale in this and, as I stated at the outset, others HAVE and ARE taking him to task on it.

We both know you can’t because there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for any of those actions.

Sorry David, but as Brad Klein pointed out these are and were not simple “mistakes” or lapses in judgments, but rather severe breaches of every ethical standard for researchers, archivists, historians and writers. Since Tom believes that his work as published on here is the equal in perception and standard to anything that is written in GolfWeek, then maybe you should listen to one of the EDITORS of that magazine, Brad Klein, when he severely chastises Tom and informs him that what he did would have brought about his IMMEDIATE dismissal from the magazine.

Instead of implying a hypocrisy to we who have yet to resign from this site maybe you should demand that Ran throw Tom Macwood off the site as you have in the past demanded that he do with others who you have accused of LYING about what they claimed was information found in club records.

If you truly believe that these deserved expulsion for lying in a small post, that you don’t demand Tom’s expulsion for creating this phony work and presenting it as a work of true scholarly research and continuing to LIE ABOUT IT to those who approached him on it and to have done so for about 8YEARS, and on top of that can excuse and justify him for doing so is the true and utmost height of hypocrisy.

[Mac Plumart]

There are a lot of great point made in this thread.  In my eyes this type of thing should never have happened and the lying after the fact took it to a whole 'nother level.  But the question now becomes what do we (as a group) do going forward.  I think virtually everyone is in agreement that this hoax could have been handled differently.  But we can't go back in time and change anything about it.  We can only move forward.

I forgive Tom Macwood and Ran.  I don't condone the behavior, I hope they never do this type of thing again...but I can't be sure of it.  So, I'll forgive them and move forward.  I'll never view the historical research being done on this site the same way again, so moving forward if I have interest in certain historical facts I'll do my own work.  No problem, that might be more fun.

I've been taught to forgive and forget.  I'll forgive, but I'll admit I have a hard time forgetting. 

Moving forward a moderator, panel of experts, and/or some kind of best practices for research process and verification just might be the way to go.

[Mike Sweeney]

I have been busy the past year, so I am out of the day to day flow of GCA.com but I did receive an email yesterday about this thread.

I will say that on a number of occasions in conversations at "Widdy's" after a round at Yale this piece by Tom MacWood was referenced as part of the history of Yale. As Phil mentioned, Ran referred to it himself in his review of Yale, which is also often spoken about at Yale. I spoke to Ran after he updated his Yale piece on the cell phone as he was driving back out of Yale. His excitement for Yale was contagious.

Yale has dramatically improved over the last few years, and in at least some part, it was due to the discussions here on GCA.com.

So does the end justify the means? Ran and Tom produce a "historical piece" for the "benefit" of golf, and who cares if it was all a lie?

Sorry Ran and Tom, that just does not work in my world.

The sad thing is I defended MacWood a few times over the years to Tom Paul on the phone. I had viewed some of Tom MacWood's actions as Asperger's like to Tom Paul and that he was not able to socially contain what he saw as the truth. Well clearly I was wrong on that one, and in the ultimate irony, Tom and Wayne's interview with Ran sits somewhat stagnant at the top of the discussion group as I type this.

I can't in a million years understand why Ran did not get out in front of this one when he is involved in a golf development at Cabot Links with big names and big money.

Back to work for me, and I will happily give up my spot here at GCA.com if Ran wants to remove me. I did not make a "contribution" this year for the first time in 10 years, as things have been sliding at GCAville for some time now.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mac,

      I, too, was taught to forgive and forget, but it comes at a price. That price is accepting that what one has done is wrong. Neither Tom nor Ran are doing so.
      They have been justifying what they did as serving the noble purpose of ferreting out those who are plagiarizing from golfclubatlas.com. Yet why then do THE TWO OF THEM REFUSE TO BOTH NAME THOSE WHO HAVE DONE IT AND EXPOSE THEM PUBLICLY? That refusal then negates any possibility that their intentions were honorable. Add to that the continued lying and continuation of the hoax for 8 years and this really is far more serious than I believe most here appreciate.
      Ran presents the site as a place where scholarly works discussing different aspects of golf course architecture can be published, discussed and debated. It is for that reason that he desired to expose those who he viewed as plagiarizing from these works. By condoning and participating in this scholarly fraud he destroys the credibility of both his own efforts and those who have also produced truly worthy pieces. By referring others to Tom’s piece and presenting it as both truth and something that should be viewed as an actual reference work when it is neither, which is what he did in the Yale piece, he is equal in guilt with Tom.
      When I spoke to Ran on Sunday I was unaware that he had actually presented Tom’s piece as a true scholarly work in his write-up of Yale just two years ago, some SIX YEARS after the hoax began. I told him that I had deep respect for him and although I disagreed with his reasons and motives that I wouldn’t judge him for it. We actually spoke about his doing a feature interview with me for my company Golden Age Research; needless to say I will not be doing one whether Ran now wants to or not. I am deeply disappointed that Ran would himself lie to us all by what he wrote in the Yale piece.
      Mac, can you give any answer at all as to why Ran HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THIS ISSUE PUBLICLY when he has privately admitted to a number of members AND NON-MEMBERS that he was involved in this hoax from the beginning? Can you explain in any way why he allows Tom Macwood to suffer alone the righteous condemnations for his acts when he knows that he also bears responsibility?
      I’m sorry, but in order to “forgive and forget” both Ran and Tom must come completely clean and ACCEPT the judgments of their actions. By attempting to justify them they lose the ability to expect “forgive and forget” and damage all associated with the site as well.
      It is for that reason that I am publicly asking Ran to remove my own In My Opinion piece titled “The Terror and the Whiffensnoozer: AW Tillinghast and the Man Behind the Myth” as I don’t want it associated in any way with either Tom’s piece or this site as it has now been shown to not meet with clear and defined professional standards for the publication of scholarly works.
      Do I hope GCA.com can survive this true scandal? Yes. Do I believe it will? Not unless both come clean and truly accept the consequences for all of their actions. In my opinion, Ran’s hope of this setting the standard for all golf architecture discussion sites has been completely derailed by this. That is the worst tragedy in all of this…
      A final thought, what if Ian Andrews had begun his discussion series of In My Opinion pieces with Tom Macwood’s phony article? How can that wonderful series now continue?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Neil Crafter asked me if I had the original article, I told him I did not, and I didn't have the original. Was I not totally forthcoming, yes, did I mislead him, you could say that, did I lie to him, Neil is the judge, not you.

Your well-known author Jeff Neuman, reprinted my essay, verbatim, in his 2006 book. He never contacted GCA (or me) prior to using it. He did not cite GCA (or me) in that book. The only author attributed to that article on this website is Thomas MacWood. Why he was researching the article three years after taking it God only knows. And by the way your version of our exchange is false, I don't know who is lying you or Jeff, but I have the emails.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

That is just further proof that everything I've said is true... I am not lying and you as an admitted multiple-time liar in this episode have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. By the way, I have never stated who the author was who approached me. You can believe whoever you want to as to who it is. When he wants to reveal his name he will.

As for Neil. By stating that you didn't have the original article you led him to believe what you knew wasn't true. Even a 5-year old knows that is a lie. You are despicable and unethical and an embarrassment to anyone who wants to take this site and subject seriously if you don't see how PURPOSEFULLY MISLEADING HIM in this instance is not a lie you are hopelessly pathetic...

[Brad Klein]

Tom, are referring to the 2006 book Lorne Rubenstein and Jeff Neuman did, "A Disorderly Compendium of Golf"? They reproduce the list, but not the text you falsely posted. Their two-paragraph intro is not your words at all.

[John Kavanaugh]

This is starting to remind me of the sting process used in the series To Catch a Predator.  I wonder if any of the thieves who use Golfclubatlas to do the work for which they are paid got any lemonade and cookies.  I have always felt that many of these so called potential great posters were actually staying off the site to cover up their desire to steal ideas from the site rather than contribute.  If even one thief is caught the ends do justify the means.

[Terry Lavin]

This is a mildly disturbing episode in the history of this very vibrant and informative website discussion group.  It reminds me of many cases I handled in my legal career where one decision or one lie led to circumstances that just couldn't be undone.  So whether it was a completely intentional act or a negligent failure to nip something in the bud, can't we all acknowledge at least that the main malefactor has come clean, allowing us to move on?  For perspective's sake, let's remember that while we've now gone five pages about this imbroglio, the discussion about the GD list simply rages on at 11 and the "Jane You Ignorant Slut" discussion about NGLA is incurably terminal at 36 or some godforsaken number.  I, for one, hope that this internet stoning doesn't go much further.  

[John_Cullum]

an embarrassment to anyone who wants to take this site and subject seriously

Tom,

I wouldn't worry too much

[Rick Shefchik]

 If even one thief is caught the ends do justify the means.

In a remarkable week of wrong-headed pronouncements, this is your worst so far.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom, are referring to the 2006 book Lorne Rubenstein and Jeff Neuman did, "A Disorderly Compendium of Golf"? They reproduce the list, but not the text you falsely posted. Their two-paragraph intro is not your words at all.

My mistake, I should have said they copied my list verbatim. You would agree they took the list from this site, and did so without acknowledging it?

[Travis Dewire]

LOLOL!!!!

I like your list Tom...But Oyster Harbors ahead of TCC and now Kittansett or Myopia or Worcester Salem Brae Burn?!?!

I liked your piece a lot, and it would be fitting for "in your opinion" section. I like the list or characters you draw from, and what their favorite courses most likely would have been.

Narcissus and Goldmund is one of my favorites, I was wondering who Hesse was, when my intuition jumped out going, Herman Hesse?

And of course, you dropped the bomb on April Fools Day. A great holiday to remind all of us, not to take ourselves so seriously.

Great article, and I support your writings

[Sean_A]

Tom, are referring to the 2006 book Lorne Rubenstein and Jeff Neuman did, "A Disorderly Compendium of Golf"? They reproduce the list, but not the text you falsely posted. Their two-paragraph intro is not your words at all.

My mistake, I should have said they copied my list verbatim. You would agree they took the list from this site, and did so without acknowledging it?

Tommy Mac

I would imagine that folks didn't think of it as "your" list, thus no need to acknowledge you or GCA.com.  I would think citing the magazine details is the proper credit.  Or do you expect a mention because you (in a make believe world) unearthed the article?  This whole thing is surreal.

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Tom, are referring to the 2006 book Lorne Rubenstein and Jeff Neuman did, "A Disorderly Compendium of Golf"? They reproduce the list, but not the text you falsely posted. Their two-paragraph intro is not your words at all.

My mistake, I should have said they copied my list verbatim. You would agree they took the list from this site, and did so without acknowledging it?

Tommy Mac

I would imagine that folks didn't think of it as "your" list, thus no need to acknowledge you or GCA.com.  I would think think citing the magazine details is the proper credit.  Or do you expect a mention because you (in a make believe world) unearthed the article?  This whole thing is surreal.

Ciao

Unless they have the original article, and we know they did not, they took it from GCA (and me). Is that ethical? I don't know, but I assume the professional journalists on this site know the answer, and for whatever reason they don't seem to be concerned.

My name is the only one on the essay - 'By Thomas MacWood.'

[Melvyn Morrow]

Terry

"I, for one, hope that this internet stoning doesn't go much further." That's nice to read

Melvyn

[Dan Kelly]

Unless they have the original article, and we know they did not, they took it from GCA (and me). Is that ethical? I don't know, but I assume the professional journalists on this site know the answer, and for whatever reason they don't seem to be concerned.

My name is the only one on the essay - 'By Thomas MacWood.'

From one "professional journalist":

The answer (in my opinion -- ethics being a matter of opinions):

Any author who reproduced that list -- or quoted the supposed "article" introducing the list -- should have attributed its source: golfclubatlas.com.

Am I "concerned" about improper use of others' intellectual property? Yes, I am. I have said as much on this site, numerous times.

There. Now, back to the ethics question of the moment.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Is anyone else amazed that Macwood = McNulty?

[David Mulle]

Unless they have the original article, and we know they did not, they took it from GCA (and me). Is that ethical? I don't know, but I assume the professional journalists on this site know the answer, and for whatever reason they don't seem to be concerned.

My name is the only one on the essay - 'By Thomas MacWood.'

From one "professional journalist":

The answer (in my opinion -- ethics being a matter of opinions):

Any author who reproduced that list -- or quoted the supposed "article" introducing the list -- should have attributed its source: golfclubatlas.com.

Am I "concerned" about improper use of others' intellectual property? Yes, I am. I have said as much on this site, numerous times.

There. Now, back to the ethics question of the moment.

A question for Dan King and Tom.

I am currently reading "The Great Hangover".  The editor of the book is Graydon Carter and it is a collection of Vanity Fair articles about the financial crisis.  If I were writing an article for a magazine or newspaper that used an anecdote from Bethany Maclean's excellent article about Fannie Mae, I would cite her as the author of the article and I would say that it appeared in Vanity Fair.  

1. Would I have an obligation to say that I actually read it in the book edited by Graydon Carter?  

2. If it turns out that despite what he says in the book's introduction, the article never appeared in Vanity Fair and the article was infact written by Mr. Carter and not Bethany Maclean, am I at fault for relying on what Graydon Carter says?
 

[Rory Connaughton]

Patrick

  Rare to see a reference to The Wire here! Talk about worlds colliding!

[Sean_A]

Tom, are referring to the 2006 book Lorne Rubenstein and Jeff Neuman did, "A Disorderly Compendium of Golf"? They reproduce the list, but not the text you falsely posted. Their two-paragraph intro is not your words at all.

My mistake, I should have said they copied my list verbatim. You would agree they took the list from this site, and did so without acknowledging it?

Tommy Mac

I would imagine that folks didn't think of it as "your" list, thus no need to acknowledge you or GCA.com.  I would think think citing the magazine details is the proper credit.  Or do you expect a mention because you (in a make believe world) unearthed the article?  This whole thing is surreal.

Ciao

Unless they have the original article, and we know they did not, they took it from GCA (and me). Is that ethical? I don't know, but I assume the professional journalists on this site know the answer, and for whatever reason they don't seem to be concerned.

My name is the only one on the essay - 'By Thomas MacWood.'

Tommy Mac

Maybe we are getting cross wired.  I am talking about a guy taking the list, not your text.  That list, if real, wasn't yours, it was the original magazine and author's.  If it were me taking the list I may give you thanks, but certainly not any sort of literary credit.  I also would have tried to get hold of the oriiginal article to validate it and credit the original author.  I don't know why you would expect literary credit for a list you uncovered. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Phillip the Grand Inquisitor,

1. In your zeal to burn Tom at the stake you have now falsely accused me of unethical behavior as well.  I never vilified Mr. Capers here or anywhere else.   Normally I'd let your ridiculous accusations go, but in this context I'd like you to set the record straight.

2. You have no business speaking for Ran here.  You have no business speaking for Neil Crafter, either.  If either of them has an issue with Tom they can take it up with Tom here or privately.   Your second hand machinations amount to little more than petty, agenda driven gossip.  Accurate or not, they are not your accusations to make or your stories to tell.  

3. As for your friend, you have no business speaking for him either, and it is pure sleaze on your part to come here wielding anonymous accusations of such a serious nature.  At least the accusers at the Salem Witch Trials made their accusations publicly.  If your friend has an issue with Tom and Ran, then he should take it up with them here or elsewhere.  In the process maybe he will explain why he swiped substantial portions of Tom's article off of Ran's website without crediting either of them.

___________________________________________

Sean,  

These authors couldn't cite to an article because they had never even seen such an article.  All they had seen was Tom's IMO, which was a work of fiction by Tom MacWood.  Copying the "article" was copying Tom.  One cannot copy out of another's work without properly crediting it and one cannot copy bulk of another's work without permission.  If the authors wanted to use the "article" they should have dug it up themselves.  Had they tried they would have found no article, at which point they would have had a choice of not mentioning it or referencing it only through Tom and GCA.com.

That is the purpose of planting information without a real source.  The theory is that those who play by the rules will never touch it because they will not be able to find the source.   Or they will have to reference only through the secondary source.   The problem with the approach is that sometimes these things take on a life of their own, and bystanders are duped in the process.   That appears to be what happened here.  

[Dan Kelly]

A question for Dan King and Tom.

I am currently reading "The Great Hangover".  The editor of the book is Graydon Carter and it is a collection of Vanity Fair articles about the financial crisis.  If I were writing an article for a magazine or newspaper that used an anecdote from Bethany Maclean's excellent article about Fannie Mae, I would cite her as the author of the article and I would say that it appeared in Vanity Fair. 

1. Would I have an obligation to say that I actually read it in the book edited by Graydon Carter? 

2. If it turns out that despite what her says in the book's introduction, the article never appeared in Vanity Fair and the article was infact written by Mr. Carter and not Bethany Maclean, am I at fault for relying on what Graydon Carter says?
 

That's two questions (emoticon omitted), and I don't know where Dan King is (emoticon omitted), but I'll take a stab at them:

1. An obligation? No. But it would be wise of you, and a service to the reader, if you did -- particularly if you QUOTE the book. (Magazine articles that end up in books are sometimes re-edited en route.)

2. No. He is (or was; I'm not up to date with Vanity Fair) the editor of Vanity Fair. You should be able to rely on his testimony that an article he says appeared in VF did, in fact, appear in VF. (I would note, at this point, that Tom MacWood was not the editor of the magazine he was supposedly quoting.)

Would it be better for you to *verify* that the article did, in fact, appear in VF? Yes. And that's relatively easily done. But if you didn't take that extra step, no working journalist would fault you.

If you verified EVERYTHING you put on paper, you'd never meet a deadline.

Dan (Kelly)

[Sean Leary]

Travis D,

For clarification, it was not posted on April Fools day. It was posted in May of 2003 and not revealed as a hoax until April Fools day this year.

[Sean_A]

David

The list was ostensibly not Tom's work, thus he gets no credit for the work.  I understand that the article was not in hand to cite, but the magazine and year were.  In retrospect, not being able to confirm the existence of the article should have rung alarm bells especially when the chap who cited the article won't pass it on.  One would "like" to think this may be down to some sort of petty jealousies concerning provenance of the found article,  but it wouldn't occur to me that the entire deal was fabricated.  Either way, the professional authors citing Tom's fake list were remiss in not confirming its existence, but tis is a hard way to learn a basic lesson - no?  These guys have much to lose and Tommy Mac has nothing to lose as he doesn't rely on writing to make a living.  To defend Tom's actions is deplorable no matter the lack of professionalism (and thats what it was) was demonstrated by the pros. 

Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()