[Carl Nichols]

. . .  but to suggest that perhaps some of the comments might have been different had Ran been the one who came clean about the scam.
 

David:
I have no dog in this fight and am following this largely because it's a fascinating insight into character and behavior.  However, since you're calling people out for having strong reactions only because Tom MacWood is the primary protoganist, I think you should ask yourself whether you would be screaming bloody murder if it instead had been Tom Paul.  

[Ian Andrew]

I think there are a couple of lessons here:

1.   If you’re going to write for any publication you have an obligation to confirm your sources
2.   Just because it’s in writing doesn’t mean it’s true (don’t we tell our kids that every week)
3.   If you write something you are responsible for what your write (something every poster should think about)
4.   Copyright applies (this is "my" greatest failing - in my case I collect and re-use images on my blog to illustate ideas)

I will do a better job with photos, I should know better.

[Dan Grossman]

One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of as this plays out is that each of us are responsible for our own behavior (on this site or anywhere).  One person's admission of poor / questionable behavior does not automatically justify the behavior of other participants on this site who are generally in disagreement with he/she on various topics.

[Bill_McBride]

J But I guess I'm just a bit stoned for viewing those actions as wrong...

"Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good
They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home
Then they’ll stone ya when you’re there all alone
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned"

These are original lyrics I just wrote for this occasion. It's a rainy day and I am stuck inside with my woman and nothing better to do.

In your leopard skin pillbox hat?

[Kevin Lynch]

Phillip the Grand Inquisitor,

1. In your zeal to burn Tom at the stake....

3. ......  At least the accusers at the Salem Witch Trials made their accusations publicly.  

Really - does this discussion have to turn into an "Us vs Them" battle of hyperbolic statements?  (David - please don't send me a 10 paragraph rebuttal about everyone else's hand in this - I'll address those below).

Hearing discussions about "Brand Suicide" or "Legal Action" really are surreal in this context.  Is it POSSIBLE that we may be over-inflating our self-importance?

Can we dial the hysteria down to a 2 or 3?  Things seem to be running at a Spinal Tap Level of 11.


To quote Mac Plumart from this morning - "we can't go back in time and change anything about it. We can only move forward."

Of course Ran and Tom should apologize for letting this get out of control and express some regret for unintended consequences that have occurred.  If Tom mislead someone who called for verification, he should apologize for that.  However, in some way, I can understand his actions as a fumbling response to a situation that moved way beyond its initial intent.

But is it really necessary to jump on this and conclude "this invalidates everything Ran has done here" (or something to that effect)?


I think it's harder to offer a full, unequivocal apology for an isolated act when you suspect those you are apologizing to may extrapolate that into something much larger.  

Which situation more aptly describes the environment we have here?

1)  "Apologize for your action and we'll see how/if we can move past this incident going forward."

2)  "Admit this and it will validate all the crappy things I thought about you.  Singlehandedly, you've fatally wounded this group and ruined 10 years worth of effort."

I think we would want #1, but the hyperbolic statements here seem to mirror #2.

[Paul_Turner]

I don't find this to be a big deal at all. 

And I think it goes to show how GCA's DG was a far friendlier place back when this article was posted.

[Bill_McBride]

If Tom MacWood labelled this 1939 list as a work of fiction up front, none of this would be an issue and the article would be very amusing to those interested in golf history.

The mention of Foulpointe got my attention but I just read this article and Forrest Richardson's fantastic tour of Foulpointe occurred later than 2003.

Interesting (but not surprising) to see Professor Moriarity jump onto the pile and start kicking!

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Patrick

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

I was hoping I wasn't the only one!

Question, is Ran then Freamon or Bunk in this case?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill McBride,  I am not surprised by your kick at me either.  One hopes though, that my "kicks" were actually aimed at shedding some light on the issue at hand.  

Sorry, but I just didn't see the need for additional inflammatory remarks that addressed old wounds more than current issues.

[Mike Hendren]

Paging Esq. Solow for the final word.

[Jim Thompson]

I don't find this to be a big deal at all. 

And I think it goes to show how GCA's DG was a far friendlier place back when this article was posted.

Spot on!!

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

I agree with your post.  And I stand by my comments to Phil.  He has no business making anonymous and unsupported claims and no business speaking for Ran, Neil, or anyone else.  If these people have issues they want addressed here, let them come forward themselves.

That's fine - my bigger concern was that such points can be made without the "ratcheting" effect of hyperbolic rhetoric or resurrection of past animosities.  

And that's on both sides of this discussion - phrases like "crumbling ruins" / "brand suicide" aren't really putting the focus on the points being raised.

[DMoriarty]

Bill,

"Old wounds?"   I am not sure I know what you are talking about, but I did not insert the ridiculous comparisons with past posters into the discussion.  Besides, you don't really think Phil's outrage and the outrage of some others is unrelated to "old wounds" do you?  

_______________________

Kevin, believe it or not, I think we are in agreement. 

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I didn't make an unsupported claim as it was ADMITTED TO BY TOM MACWOOD himself! That he believes he knows the person who spoke with me 6 weeks ago means nothing. Admitting that he purposefully LIED to the personhe believes I did speak with says it all.

And once more for you seem to have missed this, but not only did I SUPPORT HIM to the writer, but Ran was quite upset when I told him that Tom had continued the hoax and had lied about the truthfulness of the piece to at least one author who approached him and asked him for the source. It now turns out to be more people than he lets on.

As for Neil, it was TOM HIMSELF who first mentioned "misleading" him and not me. That he did so and lied to him when approached by this most irreprehensible and professional of gca-ers is very disgusting. Neil can speak for himself. My recognizing what Tom did while he was attempting to downplay it was neither defending Neil nor wrong, but the proper thing to do.

If he wants "forgiveness" then really admit what was done and accept the consequences. By not doing so he has brought more upon himself.


And Bill, you can't also possibly believe David's blather is not related to his own set of past attitudes?

[DMoriarty]

Phil

You have no business speaking for Ran, Neil, or your anonomous friend.  They can speak for themselves if they so choose. Stop the petty second-hand gossip and rumor-mongering.

And you need to set the record straight regarding your false accusation against me.  

[John Mayhugh]

Where do I go to get a refund on the cost of my GCA bag?  No way I can carry it around in public now!

I think that most all of us have benefited from our association with GolfClubAtlas and this discussion group.  I certainly have.  From time to time, I have also been guilty of feeling a bit more "ownership" than I am entitled to.  This is Ran's site, and while I probably wouldn't have approached the plagiarism issue in quite the same manner that he did, it was well within his rights to do so.  In the end, people can base their continuing participation on whatever factors that they choose, and Ran can do whatever he wants with the site.  


Notes:
The comment about the bag is a joke.
Ian, feel free to use any of my photos at any time, no attribution needed.

[Bill Brightly]

I am not a writer and know little about the proper way to verify sources and professional courtesy, etc. but is seems to me that if a writer who was doing his job properly contacted me to verify the facts, I would absolutely have an obligation to let him in on the hoax.

I might even buy the hoax as an intentional plant to catch lazy writers. But when a thorough writer contacted Tom, isn't that the time to say: "OK, you are not the kind of writer we are after. Here is the truth?" You might even ask the guy to keep it quiet if the hoax was doing its job in discovering sloppy journalists. But to continue the deception with good journalists seems weird.

[Ran Morrissett]

Sorry for the delay but I wanted to give my response careful consideration.

When we took this live, Tom and I thought that someone would come forward and sight it as a work of fiction. People weren't ranking golf courses against the backdrop of WWII and the Duke of Windsor wasn't hunched over a sheet of paper assigning grades.

That didn't happen but nonetheless, at the end of the week we published it, we should have come clean and Tom and I deeply regret that we didn't. I should have put up the Editor's Note that very Friday. That's the primary story line but there are many others. I'll mention two.

First, every single page of GolfClubAtlas.com is copyrighted. If any writer had ever contacted me re: the MacWood piece, I would have told them it was fiction.Yet, no one did. They just copied/borrowed from it and sometimes worse, they pretended that they had found it. However, I am so naive/wrong/out of touch in thinking that people should as a course of good practice seek permission before they use material from this site? Maybe I am and feel bad if that is the case.

Unfortunately, people 'lift' things from this site on a regular basis. Here is another example: 

http://www.seaviewapartment.co.uk/royalcountydown2.htm

My entire Royal County Down and photos were used without my knowledge or permission. I fight people/publications/web sites who lift photos from this site all the time. There is even a fake Facebook GolfClubAtlas.com page where they sell real estate.

Yuk. Nonetheless, things clearly ran amuck in this one instance.

I am very sorry for that, in part because another story line is this: Tom deserves credit for an outstanding piece of writing, one of the most entertaining and thoughtfully researched ones that I have read. His piece is unlikely to ever be viewed in the manner it deserved. He and I have vigorously debated that list for years and his rational/thought process never fails to impress me. His follow-up article on it will be posted next month and you'll see what I mean at that time (for those that elect to read it).

GolfClubAtlas.com was a very different vehicle in 2003 than it is today but I made a mistake then and undoubtedly, I will make others in the future. I can only try and make things better as we move ahead and any reference to this piece is being deleted throughout the rest of the web site, save for The Discussion Group. However, I can assure you that this type error in judgment will never happen again as without integrity, there is no reason for GolfClubAtlas.com to exist.

Cheers,

One of Golf's Formerly Most Beloved Figures

 

[Tom Dunne]

Bill Brightly,

That is precisely the issue that is bothering me so much.

Ran,

Thank you for weighing in. I'll send you a PM now.

[David Kelly]

Ran,

The first thing I would do if I were you is to watermark your photos.

[Terry Lavin]

Well, that should do it, unless the haters demand more flesh.

[George Pazin]

One of Golf's Formerly Most Beloved Figures

Not true, formerly should read "still".

[Dan Kelly]

I can assure you that this type error in judgment will never happen again as without integrity, there is no reason for GolfClubAtlas.com to exist.

Ran --

Thanks for a straightforward statement.

Dan

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble,

I am not defending Ran's actions or Tom's and I don't thing anyone else is either.  But I am trying to explain the context as I see it.  It ought to be beneath you to suggest my doing so is "deplorable."

"Ostensibly?" That has nothing to do with whether it was Tom's work or not.  And I really don't get your take on the source issue.  Nothing was in hand to cite nor could it have been because Tom made it up.  No magazine, no date, no article.  Because no article existed.  All that existed was Tom's fictional piece.  The purpose of providing "source" information is to identify where one gets that information.  These so-called authors got their information from Tom's IMO, not a magazine.  It was dishonest for them to represent otherwise.
______________________________________________________

David

"My research led me to this fascinating article and list. The National Golf Review was a short lived magazine (maybe 3 or 4 years) that was created shortly after The American Golfer and Golf Illustrated went under. It was founded by many of the same characters and absorbed talented contributors from both magazines – Rice, Richardson, Keeler, Martin, Hesse, Brown, Jones, Darwin, etc. It was a bi-monthly (actually monthly in the Summer and one issue each in the Winter, Spring and Fall) They also produced an Annual Review supplement. A look at the finest tests was a feature of the Annual Golf Review of 1939."

This to me is citing an article which would ostensibly mean that T Macwood does not deserve literary credit if a person is just citing the list.  The fact that it is a fake list doesn't then mean T Mac should be credited because first, one wouldn't know its a fake list if he took T Mac's word at face value.  Second, if one did find out the list is fake he wouldn't cite the article.  Its insane to think T Mac should be credited when someone is citing a list that he he stated was found during research.

Ciao 

[DMoriarty]

I think we must be talking past each other.  For me it is very simple.  If I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information based on my own direct knowledge, then I have to cite to my actual source of the information.   If I took a list from Tom's IMO then I have to source Tom's IMO, whether or not there really was a magazine article.  I cannot take Tom's word for it and then use my faith in him to justify cutting him out of his due credit.  

This to me is citing an article which would ostensibly mean that T Macwood does not deserve literary credit if a person is just citing the list.  The fact that it is a fake list doesn't then mean T Mac should be credited because first, one wouldn't know its a fake list if he took T Mac's word at face value.

The author considers Tom MacWood a reliable source therefore the author is under no obligation to honestly identify Tom as his actual source?  I don't get it?   Reliable or not, Tom was the source of the information.   If the author is comfortable taking Tom's word at "face value" then the author ought to be comfortable honestly acknowledging that he copied the list from Tom's IMO on ran's website.  This is true whether we are talking about just the list or the entire article.

As to the writer, TOM IS THE SOURCE of the information.  As to Tom, the article would have been the source, but there wasn't one.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()