Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

« **Reply #575 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:53:28 PM »

Meanwhile, back at the university, stumbling through the archives, I did find something tangentially related to this thread & Philadelphia & club histories.

It was surprising to see that a Philly newspaper occasionally listed the names of people arriving and departing.

For instance, I noticed that the Hamburg-American Line had a steamer called Bluecher that departed from New York City for Hamburg in September 1910. The Philadelphia paper noted that the only Philadelphia passengers included George A. Crump and Joseph H. Baker. This happens to agree with the timing in the PV history book. What do you know.

« **Reply #576 on:** January 25, 2007, 08:55:45 PM »

Good for you John. Thanks a million. Did you get a date on the departure? Baker certainly was the friend who went with him over there in 1910. John Ott lives in Baker's house at PVGC.

"Tom,
That's really fascinating. It seems that by default Macdonald was working for his de facto bosses both inside the office and outside the office. Not the most comfortable position to operate within, to be sure!"

MikeC:
De facto bosses? What does that mean? Macdonald was a stockbroker but I don't know who he worked for. I'm not aware that anyone of the Titans at The Creek was Macdonald's boss. All I mean to say was almost all those men were about a thousand times more powerful in things other than golf than Charley was. J.P Morgan II or Jr (a Creek founding member), and certainly his father was basically Wall Street but I don't know that C.B worked for him, or any of the other business and Wall Street tycoons of that era who started The Creek.

But you basically didn't try to bust those guys balls at a golf club or anywhere else, even if you were Charley. The original mamouth 19th and early 20th century financier J. Pierpont Morgan was pretty much the king of the hill and there was only one man on earth that he ever had to answer to in business, other than his father in the very beginning of his career around the middle of the 19th century.

« **Reply #577 on:** January 25, 2007, 09:49:11 PM »

Tom,

What I meant about those high-octane power-brokers at The Creek being the de facto bosses of Charley in the office is simply the fact that if you're a stockbroker, ALL of those men would have been his boss by default.

In other words, if for some reason he was cut out of this circle, especiially during those days, I'm sure his professional career as a stockbroker would have suffered.

He had every reason to keep those men happy.

« **Reply #578 on:** January 26, 2007, 09:06:08 PM »

Quote from: Paul Thomas on December 26, 2006, 02:56:24 PM

only 914 more posts needed to beat the record!

well, only 236 more posts til we have a new record

but now that Mr. Cirba is being treated for his Merion-thread addiction, PERHAPS the old record will survive

« **Reply #579 on:** January 26, 2007, 09:22:42 PM »

David,

Since you believe that you have shown that M&W made a huge contribution to the layout of Merion East (or certainly much more of a contribution than has been historically recognized), I'm wondering what your next course of action will be.

Are you going to write up some sort of report or analysis summarizing your findings and publish it somewhere? Are you going to present your analysis to Merion Golf Club?

If you believe you've demonstrated that Merion's history should be re-written, then that is indeed big news and surely you will take some sort of action to make sure that the truth gets out.

In fact, given the implications of your conclusions (if indeed true), I can't imagine you not wanting to reveal or publish your results to a wider audience than this forum.

Please keep us posted on what further action you take outside this forum to report your findings, and what response you get. Hopefully you will take some sort of action, because I think it's fair to say that if you don't, you will come across at best as someone unsure of your conclusions and at worst as simply an antagonist of some of the participants in this discussion group.

« **Reply #580 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:19:26 PM »

"Additionally, while we will never know how much he helped, we do know that his help was not solely of a a general nature, but specifically involved the lay out of Merion East."

No, David Moriarty, we do not know that and very definitely you don't know that no matter how many times you try to foist that idea on this website.

Every time I see you say that I'm going to counterpoint it. We do not know that Macdonald offered Merion any more than general advice on golf architecture, its principles etc at NGLA. That's what Wilson did specifically say and all he said.

We don't know anymore than he may've just said about their plans "that looks pretty good to me". We know no more than that. He may've done more than that but if he did much more there is no question in my mind the Wilsons, at least, would've mentioned it in their reports.

We just do not know if Macdonald was SPECIFICALLY involved in the actual layout, design and construction of Merion East and either do you, that's for damn sure, and every time you say that on here I will be right here to counterpoint it.

« **Reply #581 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:33:08 PM »

ChrisB:

I hope to hell Moriarty does take his conclusions and this overarching "hypothesis" of his and goes public with it. I hope to hell the public has more understanding of where he's coming from than we do on here. But fear not, if he does take his conclusions public and they are anything like they appear to be on here Wayne and I will be right there to counterpoint his conclusions. And if they are anything like they have been on here we will completely destroy his conclusions in public too.

The truth and accuracy of Merion and the record of its creation definitely does not need this man from California if his interest in Merion resembles the distortions he's put on here.

Merion doesn't need him, Macdonald doesn't need him and a accurate presentation and understanding of golf architecture history doesn't not only not need him, someone should just rid him from all this once and for all. We don't need his type of revisionism around the history of Merion or architecture.

« **Reply #582 on:** January 27, 2007, 03:09:41 AM »

While perusing Tilly's "Hazard" article in the American Golfer of February 1915, he mentioned two names in relation to Merion that have not as yet been considered as influences in either design or construction of Merion and really should be. Their presence at Merion and any documents such as old contracts, etc... that Merion might have in their archives would certainly merit finding.

They are the head professional at Merion, Mr. George Sayers, recent Scottish immigrant and his father, the well-known North Berwick professional, Ben Sayers.

We know that George was here in the US and employed by Merion at least as early as the summer of 1913 since he is mentioned as representing Merion in a tournament in the Spetember 1913 issue of the American Golfer.

Questions then... When was he hired? When was he interviewed? Was it overseas or in America?

His father who visited his son a number of times spent, according to Tilly, "A great deal of time at Merion" and so these lead to questions such as when was his first visit there?

Mr. Moriarity continuously insists that Wilson and the Committe must have gotten a primer in the design and construction of certain holes because of the similarity they bear in either descriptive terms or actual building to their Scottish namesakes and wher else could they have gotten any information about holes of these types...

The Sayers might be a very good start, especially as they were on site as the course was molded into its final 1916 US Open form with the two of them there.

I just wonder how early George Sayers was engaged by Merion and how often he may have spoken with those who would and did comprise the design and construction committee.

« **Reply #583 on:** January 27, 2007, 04:24:56 AM »

David,

You misunderstand what I meant... I am not denying CBM's involvement, just wondering if the Sayers' may have had some input. To have someone on staff with a very intimate knowledge of the hole types that tehyw ere considering for inclusion in the course design would have been stupid not to tap into. If, on the other hand, they were there after the fact of design but before construction, they again would have been an invaluable resource. Finally, if they were only on site after the initial routing and course opened, then they still must have greatly aided in the final 1916 Open course.

« **Reply #584 on:** January 27, 2007, 08:12:10 AM »

David Moriarty said;

"And I know that (sic they?) got specific advice and suggestions about the actual lay out of Merion East because Alan Wilson said so."

As I mentioned the other day, every time David Moriarty says something like this I'm going to counterpoint it in the interest of an accurate historical record of Merion's creation.

Alan Wilson did not say Hugh Wilson and the Committee "got specific advice and suggestions about the actual lay out of Merion East".

Those words are David Moriarty's words and David Moriarty description of events; they are not Alan Wilson's words or Alan Wilson's description of events. Those words are not part of the record of Merion.

We supplied this website and David Moriarty with Alan Wilson's words and his description of events and we'd appreciate that a distorted and misinterpreted version of them not be passed off as an accurate historical record of Merion East.

But if David Moriarty can find something (as we have with the Alan Wilson report we produced on here) from Alan Wilson where he wrote those words I'm sure we would all be more than happy to see them and consider them and what they indicate about the creation of Merion East.

This is what Alan Wilson said about 15 years after the creation of the course about M&W's help, advice and suggestions;

"(M&W) twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr. Henry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."

Alan Wilson said nothing at all about "actual" or "specific" help, advice or suggestions on Merion East from Macdonald or Whigam.

As for what Hugh I. Wilson said four years after the creation of Merion East about help, advice and suggestions from Macdonald and Whigam, I would be glad to requote that too.

« **Reply #585 on:** January 27, 2007, 11:07:49 AM »

David Moriarty said:

"I did not attribute the words "specific" or "actual" to Alan Wilson. Those were my words, used to distinguish what Alan Wilson actually said from your misrepresentation of what Alan Wilson said."

David Moriarty:

I realize those were your words, and that's why I mentioned that in the previous post. Too many may assume that your words were the same words Alan Wilson actually wrote. They aren't.

I quoted Alan Wilson's actual words from his report and in the future I suggest you do the same. It will be far less misleading if done that way in the future if anyone tries to interpret what happened at Merion East.

". . . By the way, the words "extremely helpful" used instead of the archaic phrase "of the greatest help and value." In my interpretation, the meaning is the same."

David Moriaty:

Your words "extremely helpful" are not the same words as Alan Wilson's words "of the greatest help and value". I suggest in the future you or any of us only use his words and not yours or anyone else. I don't care if you think his words are archaic or of the same meaning as your words. Use his words in the future and not yours if you're interested in accuracy in this investigation of what really happened at Merion East in the beginning.

Clearly some people on here tend to fixate and dissect the exact meaning of the actual words used by those men back, and if anyone is interested in doing that we certainly don't want them thinking Alan Wilson wrote your words.

« **Reply #586 on:** January 27, 2007, 11:26:33 AM »

"So we do know that he was "SPECIFICALLY involved in the actual layout . . . ." Alan Wilson leaves no doubt."

Once again, David Moriarty, I suggest you limit the words you use about what Alan Wilson wrote to the words he actually wrote.

If he used the word "SPECIFICALLY" then you should use it and we should use it. If he did not use that word then you should not use it to make it look like he did.

If you want to opine and speculate about what he meant then use the words, "In my opinion he meant". When describing what he wrote use only the words he used and not the words you said on here.

« **Reply #587 on:** January 27, 2007, 12:10:54 PM »

Forgive me if this is redundant. I only read this thread about once a week, sporadically at best to see if anyone has been challenged to a duel of niblicks at dawn on the green of Merion's 10th green. It seems to continue to be a pedantic exercise in semantics that hasn't produced anything new in the way of supporting evidence or informantion in about several hundred posts.

But, since you gentlemen have devouted so much time to the rehashing of old information, has it motivated you to seek new information or sources? Philip speaks of the Sayers and American Golfer issue in 1915. Has anyone tried to run down the Sayers family history?

I think I suggested many pages ago that someone look for issues of Spaulding's Golf Guide, being editted during the era in question by Tom Bendelow. In fact, the 1913 issue (which would have been just in the wake of the time period you gents are discussing) is actually photographed in Stuart Benedelow's biography on his Grand Dad. Has anyone investigated whether those issues of that publication mention anything about Merion and its appearance on the golf scene. Bendelow, the old Scot that was building over a 100 courses by then, had to know all those old players from his officiating tournament activities. The old Scots had to have a network, and had to discuss the latest activities of significance in their professions. I would think that the advent of Merion's creation, bursting on the scene would be top of the list of their discourse.

What about other supporting documentation from independent sources that might suggest certain locations of the key characters, like bank drafts? Do you suppose any of those old Philly banking institutions have any records of money drafts issued to or on behalf of Hugh Wilson or any other principal characters in this saga, which might lend insight into their activities at key times in the plot?

Of course none of such potential new information would likely be definitive. Yet, new supporting information would spice up this never ending back and forth of the same old documents of letters by Alan Wilson and such that you all are stuck on.

« **Reply #588 on:** January 27, 2007, 12:19:42 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on January 27, 2007, 10:24:50 AM

Quote from: TEPaul on January 27, 2007, 08:12:10 AM
Those words are David Moriarty's words and David Moriarty description of events; they are not Alan Wilson's words or Alan Wilson's description of events. Those words are not part of the record of Merion.

Again, an enormous mistrepresentation of Merion's historical record. Alan Wilson said that Macdonald and Whigham:
1. Went over the grounds;
2. considered the Committee's plans for the layout of Merion East;
3. advised the committee about their plans for the layout of Merion East;
4. Provided extremely valuable advice and suggestions [/b]about the layout of Merion East.[/b]

So we do know that he was "SPECIFICALLY involved in the actual layout . . . ." Alan Wilson leaves no doubt.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear this up, Tom.

. . . By the way, the words "extremely helpful" used instead of the archaic phrase "of the greatest help and value." In my interpretation, the meaning is the same.

Your interpretation?

« **Reply #589 on:** January 27, 2007, 12:58:43 PM »

"His advice was not "general" and we do know he was "SPECIFICALLY" involved in the layout, as opposed to generally discussing principles."

David Moriarty:

How do you know his advice was not general?

If somehow you think you actually do know that his advice could not have been general then would you mind telling me what there is or ever was about Merion East's golf course that Macdonald specifically did? I'm sure Merion and the rest of us would be very happy and interested to know that.

I don't know if Macdonald's advice and involvement with Merion was general or specific---I don't believe anyone left alive knows, and I certainly know you don't know.

And that is precisely my point, always has been.

On the other hand, given all that Alan and Hugh Wilson (and Richard Francis) said Wilson and his committee were involved in at Merion it is not a difficult deduction to determine who was involved in probably most all the specific details of the golf course.

I don't know all the different people who did various and specific things there in those six months and either do you. I don't think anyone alive knows. Macdonald probably didn't know because he wasn't there during that six months except possibly before it began.

But Hugh Wilson and his committee sure as hell knew who did every specific detail of that golf course then. They were the only ones who were there working on it every day.

And what did they say about that in general terms? Well we have that---eg it was in the main Wilson with his committee. What did they say about who did what specifically? Nothing, with the exception of what Francis said obviously because he was so proud of his brainstorm on #15 and #16.

So if they said that no one other than them did anything specifically and they said Wilson and the Committee did the course for six months what does that tell you about who logically had to be there involved every day in the specifics of the layout, design and construction of the course?

Let's say Macdonald told them to build that Alps, or the redan, or the so-called Eden green. Let's say he stayed there for a week or more and he made them a drawing of those holes or more and then oversaw the work. Let's say he did something that specific or more. Don't you suppose they would have mentioned that given the nature of the various credit given in those two reports?

But of course it has never been in your interest to even acknowledge what both Wilsons (Francis et al) said about Merion East and the "Special Construction Committee" even in general terms which is the only kind of context anyone ever said anything about the creation of Merion East.

I listed all the things Alan Wilson said in the remainder of his report even if in fairly general terms about the course and the "Committee" and I noticed you not as much as acknowledged an iota of any of it, much less commented on it.

It's isn't any wonder at all why.

You're not interested in the truth about Merion, you're merely interested in promoting and furthering, despite everything else to the contrary, your "Hypothesis" that Macdonald has been discounted and minimized in what he did with Merion and your hypothesis that all of us here are out to perpetuate that discounting and minimizing of Macdonald's part in Merion.

« **Reply #590 on:** January 28, 2007, 01:15:11 PM »

David,

I go back to my original questions and my overall premise.

Why is there NO specific evidence of any tweaking of the routing brought about by CBM's input ?

Why is there NO specific evidence of any design concept that CBM presented on a specific hole or in regard to a specific feature ?

Why is there NO specific evidence with respect to a construction technique CBM might have recommended on any hole or feature ?

Absent evidence citing CBM's DIRECT and SPECIFIC involvement you can't conclude that he was intimately involved at Merion, or even that he was involved at Merion, other than as an outsider providing general advice.

« **Reply #591 on:** January 28, 2007, 01:50:36 PM »

"You suggested that his advice was only related to general advice on golf architecture and its principles. A. Wilson wrote that the advice was actually about the layout of Merion East."

True. Obviously Macdonald knew they'd come to him for advice to build a course in philadelphia but how do you know his advise about the layout of Merion East was not general?

« **Reply #592 on:** January 28, 2007, 02:25:45 PM »

David,

With respect to the routing CBM could have stated that you shouldn't have the 1st hole heading east or the 18th hole heading west, or the practice range facing east or west, or where to site the clubhouse. Or how to best contend with roads that divide the property.

His advice could have been akin to Ross's advice in "Golf has Never Failed Me" Valueable, but, TOTALLY non-specific to a particular site. General tenets serving as a primer, basic architecture 101.

« **Reply #593 on:** January 28, 2007, 04:00:25 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on January 28, 2007, 03:26:53 PM

Patrick,

Same answer as to TEPaul. According to Alan Wilson his advice was "[]specific to a particular site." and that site was Merion East.

David, that's a vague, if not nebuous reference.

Again, it could have been about clubhouse location, direction of the 1st and 18th holes.

There's NOT one specific reference that identifies a specific feature, hole or route.

Also, Patrick, what about the trip to Merion during construction. Do you really think Macdonald came down, examined their planned routing, then waxed and waned about the general principles of the diagonal carry ??

The nature and substance of CBM's visit is speculative at best.

The fact that the record is silent with respect to his specific particpation would seem to indicate that he was a spectator and a cheerleader more than anything else.

David, you can't imply that CBM was specifically involved just because he visited Merion.

If I designed and was constructing a golf course and I invited Ran to come and visit, what does that imply ?

Am I seeking his approval ?
Do I want to show off what I've done ?
As a fellow afficianado, do I want him to see what's been created ?

Just because CBM visited doesn't mean he was involved in the nuts and bolts of routing, design and construction.

And, the fact that there's NO recorded evidence of his SPECIFIC involvement in any aspect of the routing, design and construction leads me to believe that he had a passive, distant relationship with the creation of Merion rather than and active, intimate relationship.

« **Reply #594 on:** January 28, 2007, 06:53:18 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on January 28, 2007, 06:19:01 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 28, 2007, 04:00:25 PM
David, that's a vague, if not nebuous reference.

Again, it could have been about clubhouse location, direction of the 1st and 18th holes.

Just as I cannot read anything into the description, you cannot just read it as a nullity.

He advised them and made suggestions about the lay out and those suggestions and that advice was very helpful and very valuable.

How did he advise them and what specific suggestions did he make ?

If you can't answer that question, you can't qualify and quantify his involvement.[/color]

This is not speculation, vague or nebulous. It is the historical record.

The record is vague and nebulous.
It sheds no light on any detail and is absent any specifics concerning his involvement.[/color]

Quote
The nature and substance of CBM's visit is speculative at best.

The fact that the record is silent with respect to his specific particpation would seem to indicate that he was a spectator and a cheerleader more than anything else.

David, you can't imply that CBM was specifically involved just because he visited Merion.

He didn't "just visit" Merion. The historical record is that he visited and reviewed their plans then made further suggestions.

Since when is reviewing existing plans providing input ?
Why is there absolutely NO record of any suggestions he might have made ?

If he made suggestions that caused changes to the routing, design or construction, why aren't they evidenced in detail ?
Why is there nothing more than general acknowlegement of his presence ?

If he made substantive contributions, I'm sure they would have been described in detail, by CBM or others.
Yet, none appear, suggesting that he wasn't intimately involved and was more of a spectator rather than a collaborator.[/color]

Quote
And, the fact that there's NO recorded evidence of his SPECIFIC involvement in any aspect of the routing, design and construction leads me to believe that he had a passive, distant relationship with the creation of Merion rather than and active, intimate relationship.

Then you are not willing to take the historical record at face value.

Because there is no record.
Only vague and nebulous references to his presence.
The face value is worthless because there's NOT one identifying description of anything specific he did.[/color]

Because the historical record says that he was involved from the time they were choosing the site until they were almost done planning the course.

"Involved" another vague and nebulous reference.

If he was so involved, tell us specifically what advice he provided on the routing, design and construction of MERION.

Absent a valid citation, your premise is hollow.[/color]

« **Reply #595 on:** January 28, 2007, 06:57:54 PM »

"Because it was about "the layout of Merion East" not general principles of architecture."

Read some of Patrick's replies. Obviously you don't realize that advice on the layout of a golf course can be extremely general.

« **Reply #596 on:** January 28, 2007, 07:01:09 PM »

"Also, Patrick, what about the trip to Merion during construction. Do you really think Macdonald came down, examined their planned routing, then waxed and waned about the general principles of the diagonal carry ??"

When did Macdonald come down during construction? Do you even know when construction began?

"Just as I cannot read anything into the description, you cannot just read it as a nullity. He advised them and made suggestions about the lay out and those suggestions and that advice was very helpful and very valuable.
This is not speculation, vague or nebulous. It is the historical record."

It is speculation, nothing more. This is why it is logical to deduce that the people who essentially spent every day on the layout, design and construction of a project should get the vast majority of the credit for laying out, designing and constructing the golf course sans any evidence that someone else was involved. I could see that we may not understand that someone was largely involved in the creation of a golf course if there is no record of its creation. That is most certainly not the case with Merion East. We can be quite sure that Wilson and his committee worked on that course every day for those six months in 1911.

From the agronomy letters it appears that Wilson was involved with the golf course almost every day for the next 14 years which was the remainder of his life.

« **Reply #597 on:** January 29, 2007, 12:31:48 AM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on January 28, 2007, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: Doug Braunsdorf on January 27, 2007, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: DMoriarty on January 27, 2007, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: TEPaul on January 27, 2007, 08:12:10 AM
Those words are David Moriarty's words and David Moriarty description of events; they are not Alan Wilson's words or Alan Wilson's description of events. Those words are not part of the record of Merion.

Again, an enormous mistrepresentation of Merion's historical record. Alan Wilson said that Macdonald and Whigham:
1. Went over the grounds;
2. considered the Committee's plans for the layout of Merion East;
3. advised the committee about their plans for the layout of Merion East;
4. Provided extremely valuable advice and suggestions [/b]about the layout of Merion East.[/b]

So we do know that he was "SPECIFICALLY involved in the actual layout . . . ." Alan Wilson leaves no doubt.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear this up, Tom.

. . . By the way, the words "extremely helpful" used instead of the archaic phrase "of the greatest help and value." In my interpretation, the meaning is the same.

Your interpretation?

Quote
Doug, as I noted, the only thing at all interpretive in the above quote is my use of the term "extremely valuable" in substitution for the archaic phrase "of the greatest help and value." But if something is "of the greatest" of anything, then it necessarily has to be at least extremely . . . ?

Not necessarily. In the context of this discussion, the content of the letter from Alan Wilson, the phrase was given as a GENERAL thanks. YOU are using artistic license in substituting "extremely valuable" to bolster your own position, even though it may not be factually correct. [/red]

Quote
Since you apparently disagree with my interpretation, then what do you think the phrase: "of the greatest help and value?" meant?

I disagree with your interpretation, because you are not an objective party or observer. You know the conclusion you want, and are in process of splitting hairs to find it.

What do I think "of greatest help and value" meant?
I think it's a general, nonspecific, polite way of saying thank you. Absent any other factual evidence, I cannot, and you cannot take it for more than it is.

Why would Macdonald not have spoken up if he felt his contribution was minimized or taken for less than it was?

Doesn't it seem strange to you that it took some 20 years for someone else to make an allegation? And, consider the source. Whigham. His SON IN LAW. Do you think Whigham may have had some motives for saying what he did that go beyond just "setting the record straight"?
Especially, because by that time, some of the original actors involved in the creation of the course were dead, and could not confirm or refute the claim?

Money, perhaps? A piece of CBM's will?

[/red]

« **Reply #598 on:** January 29, 2007, 08:33:55 AM »

"It is not speculation, unless you think Alan Wilson was speculating when he described CBM's involvement."

David Moriarty:

Here’re Alan Wilson’s words and he says noting about M&W’s advice and suggestions being or offering anything specific as to the layout, design and construction of Merion East. For you to interpret his words that way is purely speculation.

"(M&W) twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr. Henry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."

« **Reply #599 on:** January 29, 2007, 09:04:36 AM »

"I am not an objective observer? That gets said a lot on here but I do not get it. How am I not an objective observer? As I see it, I have no personal stake in the history of Merion or the history of Macdonald's influence on early golf in america. I am merely interested in it, and trying to discover the truth about.
So tell me, what makes you conclude that I am not an objective observer? Do you know something I don't?"

David Moriarty:

To answer your question to DougB, I'll tell you exactly why I don't think you're an objective observer. Matter of fact, I have been telling you why you're not an objective observer throughout this thread but as usual you simply ignore it.

You're not an objective observer because all you have ever done in any of these Merion threads is concentrate on what the Wilsons and others have said about M&W's involvement with Merion East. That is the only thing you have argued on the creation of Merion.

What you have basically totally failed to consider or even acknowledge, and what you have surely failed to discuss is what Hugh Wilson said about the Committee and the layout and construction of Merion East and particularly what you have failed to consider, acknowledge and particularly to discuss is all the times Alan Wilson mentioned and praised The Committee for the laying out, design and construction of Merion East.

I quoted those remarks by Alan Wilson on this thread and once again you totally ignored them. They're extremely significant in determining who was responsible for laying out, designing and constructing Merion East, not the least reason being they are the only ones who were there every day.

That's why you are not an objective observer. I could sort of understand you overlooking what-all they said about the involvement of the "Special Construction Committee" if you were just conducting this investigation on your own but the fact is it has been pointed out to you a number of times and you simply continue to fail to even acknowledge it. That not only smacks of not being objective, it smacks of an agenda borne by a preconceived conclusion.

On the other hand, I have always considered carefully what the reports of both Wilson's said about both M&W and the "Special Construction Committee".

News:

john_stiles

TEPaul

Mike_Cirba

PThomas

CHrisB

TEPaul

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

Phil_the_Author

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

RJ_Daley

Doug Braunsdorf

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Doug Braunsdorf

TEPaul

TEPaul