[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

 I will avoid casting aspersions generally and direct my comments to you.

I'd first like to join everyone else in stating the obvious.  Private clubs can do whatever they please with their documents.   Keep them private, make them available, it is up to them.  I don’t think I or anyone else has stated otherwise.   I am not questioning and have not questioned the policies of these or any other private clubs. 

My comments for the rest of the essay are directed at Wayne Morrison, not as a member of Merion,but as a participant on this website. 

The issue of access to the documents has nothing to do with our supposed disrespect of any of these clubs.  No such disrespect exists. Rather, it is your selective use of the documents that puts the clubs in an awkward position, and creates suspicion from those interested in getting to the truth.

If Merion Cricket Club is concerned about the confidentiality of their records then you should respect their wishes by keeping the information confidential, and by foregoing the use of any of the information to advance your own agenda. 

It is a betrayal of their trust to use any of their information for your own purposes.  It is a betrayal of our trust to cherry-pick select information while denying us the opportunity to review the rest. 

Let’s take a look at the tremendous respect you have shown MCC and cga.com since reviewing the documents.

1.   Upon reviewing the documents you contacted TEPaul (not a member of either club) to share with him what you had found.
2.   TEPaul then became our town crier (site crier?), moving from thread to thread announcing that you would soon be posting a letter of utmost importance, a letter that that would answer every question and resolve the problem.
3.   You then posted the contents of the CBM letter, and instantly informed us that this was all you were providing.
4.   You, TEPaul, and Cirba then tried to cut off the conversation cold, as if the letter did NOT raise more questions than it answered. 
5.   But you continued to share the contents of the documents,  describing at least some of Merion’s Board Minutes with TEPaul, who then summarized these and dispersed them to an email group large enough to include me twice, once on an email address I haven’t used in five years.
6.   You were on the list, and TEPaul was speaking for you and claims you are in on it, so surely were approved of TEPaul’s blabbing.

The emails concerned TEPaul’s latest scheme, a group IMO to “counterpoint” my essay.  Or, as TEPaul summarized last night:

". . . just take our time and hopefully get MCC's permission with direct source material and just disprove your essay and make the fool out of you that's deserving of your kind of crap assumptions, conclusion and essay!

[Somehow I don't think Mike Cirba will mind this personal vendetta so much.]

Is this the reason you gave MCC in order to gain access to the files?   Is it really the kind of high-minded and objective research and analysis you had in mind in your post?   Is this really the kind of respect you suggest we show for the clubs and each other?

Never mind whether you have already presented your research to your Board and Members, whether MCC’s permission to post the letter, whether you got permission to allow TEPaul to blab his version of the information all over the web.   These things are all between you and the Clubs.   My concern is the disrespect your actions show us.

In short Wayne, if you don’t want your research and analysis subject to the criticism or challenge, then KEEP IT ENTIRELY TO YOURSELF.   But once you enter the fray, then you better be willing and able to defend it, and that includes producing your sources, and not just the one you cherry-picked try and make your point.

I agree that there are serious problems on this website, but the problem is not with those few of us who are trying to write and present quality research.  The problem lies with those like Wayne Morrison, who expects everyone else to fully support everything they write, but then demands that we simply take his word for things, without review or follow through.  The problem also lies with posters like TEPaul who contributes the most words but little of substance, and who tries to control the agenda and shape the results in any way he can including deception,  and who will brow beat anyone who dares to disagree with him.

When Tom MacWood and David Moriarty conduct their exhaustive efforts and come up with their conclusions, right or wrong, they should be obligated to share that information with the clubs involved as a first step, as a matter of courtesy.  They should allow peer review during their processes.  It is vital to do so.  To present original work on this website without regard to the clubs involved is in bad form.  For the founder and administers of this site to allow this information on the site without some established procedures is reckless and has caused many of these problems.  Is this a blog or a platform striving to achieve a higher potential?  Endorsing such findings without being informed enough to do so is harmful.  Presenting interesting ideas as fact is also causing us problems within the site and beyond.

First, thank you for actually calling me out directly in this paragraph.  It is a refreshing change compared to the rest of the essay.

Unless you are here officially representing Merion then I think it inappropriate to discuss this with you, especially in public.   I'd be glad to address it with you in private as it involves you and your dear friend TEPaul.

And by the way, what is your role here?  Are you speaking on behalf of Merion in the post above?  Or are speaking solely for you and TEPaul? 

Unless you are speaking on behalf of MGC or MCC, then I see no reason to discuss any of this with you.  To do so in public would be disrespectful to your Club. 

In fact I am rather shocked that you responded to my private email in this public forum, and  did not even give me the courtesy of a private reply.   If this is truly a Club matter, then this is obviously not the proper forum for discussion.  Out of respect for your Club, I've attempted to show you every courtesy in our private dealings.   It is incredibly disrespectful and demeaning for you to turn a private issue into rhetoric to justify your behavior.

[DMoriarty]

While you would not know it by Wayne's accusations, my essay was based entirely on information available in the public domain.

While researching my essay, I neither demanded nor even requested that Merion Golf Club provide me with documents or information. 

I did contact Merion Cricket Club over a year ago, but was not allowed access to the documents.   

I have also complied with Wayne's wishes regarding how I have treated any source material that Merion might consider sensitive.

The accusation that I have been disrespectful of MGC or MCC 's privacy is  absolutely outrageous.


Moreover, most of my research came from the internet or Philadelphia area libraries and archives.

Given that Wayne and TEPaul have been researching Merion for something like ten years, I would have thought that they would have been long familiar with most or all of what I found.  But I nonetheless offered to share my research with Wayne, and granted every one if his multiple requests for my work product.  I also provided Wayne with my interpretation of a number of issues relating to the land purchases, provided supporting documents that aided in their interpretation, and read and accurately explained in detail a deed that he and TEPaul had misunderstood for over a year.   I also pointed them toward a number of other sources.   I will continue to try to accommodate Merion in any way I can, regardless of Wayne's insulting accusations.

I do find in ironic though, that much of the information that TEPaul tried to use to impeach my essay came directly or indirectly from me.

So while TEPaul is trying to gather a group to work together to "make a fool out of me" I have been trying to work together with them all along. 

Indeed, if these guys truly want an accurate portrayal of Merion's early history, then I would think they would want me to have these documents so I could incorporate them into my essay, and correct any facts or inferences that I may have gotten wrong.

But then that would not make a fool of me, would it?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Why would you write the following?

The emails concerned TEPaul’s latest scheme, a group IMO to “counterpoint” my essay.  Or, as TEPaul summarized last night:

". . . just take our time and hopefully get MCC's permission with direct source material and just disprove your essay and make the fool out of you that's deserving of your kind of crap assumptions, conclusion and essay!

[Somehow I don't think Mike Cirba will mind this personal vendetta so much.]


This implies that I was part of that communications and saw the private email you are referring to, which I did not.

I was part of an email chain yesterday that involved Tom Paul recommending an IMO be created collaboratively between all of us, with you and others on the distribution list, addressed to Ran, and to which Ran responded in the positive.   It was also suggested by Ran and Tom that we keep further discussion of this off the Discussion Group, as Ran thought it much too weighty of a matter for our tit-for-tat little group   The distribution list of the email also included a number of other GCA'ers, past and present;

I won't copy Tom and Ran's emails here...they can share them if they like, but I found the tone of both to be sincere and was hoping for a positive outcome from all of this.

I responded to everyone as follows;

Tom/Ran,

I think it makes perfect sense.   

At present, we've some progress but I am also concerned that its been at a personal expense for many of us.

I don't want someone going to GCA to find out more about something we're trying to do VERY positive at Cobb's Creek to honor guys like Wilson, Crump, Tillinghast, Lesley, Ab Smith, George Thomas, et.al, and what they were trying to do that is a great part of golf's history, and see me going around and around with David, or Shivas, or Patrick, on the same circuitous, acceleratingly heated arguments and getting turned off to helping or getting involved in a project that should truly concern all golfers who have an interest in architectural history.
 
As a result of this latest go-round, we have learned some things, and other things have been disproven, but at what cost?

I'm not sure what the benefit is at the end of the day, but I have no fear that history will show that ALL of these guys collaborated.   It was simply also true that much like today, the guy who was responsible gets the credit, and I think David's essay woefully underestimates Wilson's insight, quick study, and probably his most valuable asset...incredible persistence.  Of course they would have taken advice from guys like Macdonald and Whigham...to do otherwise would have been the height of arrogance.   But don't leap from there to making the assertion that Wilson just designed to Macdonald's plans, because I think ultimately we'll see differently.   

In any case, I agree that until new evidence comes to light, I think we should keep the backbiting and argumentative stuff off the DG, and if I can help in any way to put together a more definitive and collaborative IMO piece, please count me in.

Thanks,

Mike


True to my word, I did not post a single thing on the Merion threads yesterday, and trusted the matter was over until we could move forward, hopefully together in a more positive way.

So David, if you would, please remove my name and that comment about me from your post.   

I have publicly apologized to you here in the past re: my rush to judgement of your motivations.   While I have continued to vigorously defend what I see as the important historical accuracy of events, I believe I have since framed my arguments in a way that tries to stick to facts and interpretation of facts, and have not made it personal.   

Thanks
Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

In thinking about this, I would like to implore of you in the strongest possible terms;

Please consider the wisdom of what you have just posted and please remove them.   

Wayne has tried to give us all some understanding of the sensitivities and uncertainties the clubs have with their archival information, as well as the private atmosphere that pervades those clubs.

All along you've told us that all you're looking for are the facts, of who did what when.   I believe you.

Then why would you post something like you just did, when you have to be able to see that the only result of your posts in this public forum would be for those new findings to never see the light of day, by you, by me, or by anyone else here?

Why would you slam that door shut to future researchers, because that is precisely what your posts would do?


Please seriously reconsider removing them, David.   

This is far more important than any one of us, no matter how offended we might be.   

Please consider that you might be sinking the one opportunity for all of us to actually find the truth.  I don't think you want to do that type of damage and I trust you'll do the right thing here.

Thanks.   

[DMoriarty]

Mike, 

My post was not directed to MGC or MCC, nor was it even about them. It was directed to Wayne Morrison and about his interactions on this site.

Wayne chose to selectively use MCC's and/or MGC's information rhetorically, to try score a cheap point here on this site, and he is providing it to TEPaul for the same purpose.   Yet he has the audacity to suggest that I have been disrespectful to these clubs.

Surely you don't think that his words and behavior are beyond reproach simply as a consequence of his membership in a private club?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Then why did you cite my name in the middle of your post?   I have nothing to do with what either Wayne or Tom choose to post or email. 

I am simply stating what I see as the direct result of your posts;


1) The likely possibility of shutting down of research availability to outsiders by these clubs

2) The strong probability that the true story of Merin's origins will never be publicly disseminated.

3) The further diminishing of GCA as a site for serious historical research.


I don't think you want to be responsible for any of the above, in whole or in part.

Please consider the results of your actions here.

Wayne seems to me to be simply asking for the time to get the proper permissions.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, all I have done is state the obvious.   Wayne suggested that we play by certain rules, and I agree 100%.   I have been doing my best to play by those rules.   Wayne has not.   

Don't try to hold me responsible for the consequences of his irresponsible actions.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I would ask you again to kindly remove my name from your post.

I would also kindly ask you to reconsider the probable effects of your posts and ask that you remove them.

Do you have interest in seeing the results of what Wayne has uncovered?

Do you believe that the whole story should be unearthed and dissseminated?

I certainly do, and believe you do as well.   

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

In your posts #25 & #26 you have called into question the way certain information about the creation of Merion that has been found in the last few days has been used on here and you seem to infer the manner in which reference to it was used on here disrespects Merion G.C., MCC and the integrity of this website. I should probably quote what you said in that vein but you or anyone else should be able to find it in the numerical list of about six things in your post #25.

1.   First, it is not up to you to dictate or even suggest how Wayne Morrison and I work together. That’s up to us. It is also not up to you attempt to dictate or suggest what my own relationship with Merion is or should be, and that includes what I do with them and what I say on here about them or their club or course. It also should not be for you to assume what that roll is or even what it should not be. That is between me and Merion and Wayne Morrison, and not you.

2.   I do admit, at this time, I have probably put more information out there about what is generally contained in those MCC board meeting minutes about the creation of Merion East and who did it than I should and I mostly apologize to Wayne Morrison for that. He did not want to do that because he feels a responsibility to these two clubs to get their permission first regarding this material before disseminating to anyone other than the clubs themselves. I did that for a couple of reasons: First, to attempt to make clearer on this website what really happened AND WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN with the creation of Merion without actually quoting the source material. I did that to attempt to prevent your baiting him, and me, which you have done constantly for our stonewalling or complete information he, and we, have recently come by. Then I sent out a group email with you and a number of others on it to attempt to resolve, OFF THIS WEBSITE, this bickering and baiting on here. But today, you, once again, cut and pasted parts of that email on here. I didn’t sent you and the rest that email to have any of it put on here. If I wanted it on here I would have put it on here. This will result in you being cut out of any loop to resolve this offline in the future because there appears to be no way at all I can communicate with you offline and not have it put on here by you. It will also preclude you ever getting access to any of this recent information yourself from the club, so there’s no reason any longer for you to request it of their historian as you’ve recently done. But you will get this information and in its exact transcribed form just like the rest of the participants to this website will get it. This information, HOPEFULLY, will be put on here in an IMO essay that Wayne and I will write, provided both clubs give us permission to put it on here.

3.   We both spoke to Ran Morrissett this morning and as you can see from his response to my email (that you and others were included in) that he very much wants this IMO piece that will explain from original meeting minutes source material who did route and design and construct Merion East as well as who didn’t.

4.   Will our essay counterpoint and contradict your premises and conclusion on your essay, “The Missing Faces of Merion”? Of course it will as we’ve suggested to you all along it probably would and for the simple reason that the two Wilson reports are correct in who it was who routed, design and constructed Merion East, excepting, of course, the credit they both gave Macdonald and Whigam for their help and advice he supplied them in basically three visits with them. These meeting minutes explain WHY the Wilson brothers wrote their reports the way they did.

5.   Following that we plan to write another IMO essay on here which Ran approves of that explains the dangers of interpretations of club architectural history that is clearly revisionist and incorrect and the dangers of doing that lest people out there with less than complete information take it to be the truth. As I explained to you yesterday on a group email and one to Tom MacWood that I would expect he will forward to you (I told him I have no problem with that) that we are not doing this in any way to embarrass you or him, and that we would like to find ways to your satisfaction that would preclude that happening. We all realize you have done a lot of good research here but the ultimate point here is that your premises and conclusion are wrong---eg they are not the accurate history of the architecture of Merion East, and these meeting minutes and supporting letters from the participants will prove it beyond a doubt. Frankly, we in no way blame you for the mistakes in your premises and conclusion as it is just the nature of this business and the danger in it with drawing conclusions about a golf course’s architectural history with lack of access to, and the availability of the complete source material of the club. That wasn’t your fault at all as you did ask for access a year ago and you didn’t get it, and so you never had source material that would have allowed you to see the errors in your premises and conclusion. You will get it now if we are given permission to write this IMO essay on the True architectural history of Merion East.


6.   I have even offered to, in the future, collaborate with both of you (you and Tom MacWood) to develop a really good essay on some of the other aspects of C.B. Macdonald, the man, that is not just in the sole context of his architecture, although obviously that relates. If that is done well and done accurately I think it would truly explain why Merion went to him in the first place and why they decided to create The Merions with an “amateur/sportsman” architect with a group of four others of the same ilk to help him on the committee he would chair. I think it would also explain a lot more about this era of American architecture. I think you and Tom MacWood and I have a true interest and desire to do that and I think we can do it well (I don’t think Wayne Morrison does have our particular interest in Macdonald). So, I am offering this collaboration idea to you and Tom MacWood here and now, so all can be aware of it, and if you accept it I believe we can also put our differences and arguments that have taken place in the past to rest, and finally make that kind of unfortunate occurrence a thing of the past on this discussion board.


So, there it is----the ball is in your court.

[TEPaul]

"Mike, all I have done is state the obvious.   Wayne suggested that we play by certain rules, and I agree 100%.   I have been doing my best to play by those rules.   Wayne has not."


David Moriarty:

You have just got to stop saying things like that about Wayne Morrison. You just have to!!

Wayne is playing by rules that people like you don't have to play by or that you apparently even understand and appreciate . You don't even belong to a golf club but he belongs to THIS ONE and he has to play by various rules than just the ones for this website or for one's self alone which is all you're doing or ever have done on HERE.

Why in the world you can't understand that and cut the man a break is simply beyond me and it is also the very thing that continues to cause problems on this website on these Merion/Macdonald threads. Listen to what Wayne said on the initial post on this thread and also what people like Mike Cirba and me are saying to you now. Just stop fighting us on post after post! You've just got to stop with  Wayne and me on here or as Mike Cirba has said you will end up killing this entire thing and nothing new will ever see the light of day on here.

Is that what you really want? Is that what you really want to do simply to continue to defend your essay? I sure hope not! I thought you wanted the truth, no matter what it might say.


You have just got to STOP saying that to him and about him on here.

[Dan Herrmann]

Wayne's original post was very eloquent and deserves our attention and respect.  He's absolutely correct in everything he says there. 

Only thing I'd also like to suggest is that academic historical investigations (such as the Merion topic) adhere to accepted academic publishing and review standards, something I think Wayne, Tom, and Mike, and others have also been trying to convey.

[DMoriarty]

Dan Hermann, I too agree with much of what was in Wayne's post. 

What I disagree with is his outrageous claim that I and others have not been playing by the rules that these clubs set out.  I have played by those rules every step of the way.   Wayne has not.

As for  "accepted academic and peer review standards" I would welcome them.   

Indeed, as I clearly stated up front in my essay, it is a rough-draft, and a work in progress, and I expect it to change as new information becomes available.   Part of the reason I posted my essay was to expose it to criticism and review, to learn from that criticism, and then to modify it to reflect any valid criticism or any facts which I had not yet considered.   

I remain ready and willing to modify and alter my essay to conform to any new facts or compelling analysis, but thus far all we have is Wayne Morrison's drive-by submission of a single letter, and his, TEPaul's, and Mike Cirba's efforts to cut of the conversation.   It would be wrong for me to make any changes until I am allowed to better understand the context of the letter within the rest of the source material

In contrast, Wayne has proven that he has absolutely no interest in peer review,  under even the loosest understanding of the phase: 

He cherry-picked a single letter, and then immediately cut off all of our avenues to critique it or review it in the context whence it came.

That is bush-league deception, not serious academic research and analysis.

And Mike, Wayne, and TEPaul are NOT interested in anything like academic peer review.  As Wayne's actions and his  post above indicate, Wayne wants one-way peer review, where he can pick and choose the sources he wants the world to see, and to supress the rest.  This is exactly what Wayne has done on this board.   Yet he then has the nerve to demand that all others must turn over all of their work to be vetted thoroughly before any of it is released.  Peer review does not make exceptions.


Don't get me wrong, if Wayne wants to produce an incomplete, sterilized, and unreviewed version of Merion's history for distribution within his club, then I have no quarrels with that.  But that would have little or no value as a source of understanding of what really happened.  I have no idea why Merion might want something like this (and I doubt they do) but that is none of my business.   

The stated purpose of his and TEPaul's new project is to "counterpoint my essay," to "prove me wrong," and "to make a fool of me."   Surely with those as their goals, then all of their work and sources ought to be subject to at least the same scrutiny mine.

___________________________

Mike Cirba.   You object to my inclusion of the following aside in my post:

[Somehow I don't think Mike Cirba will mind this personal vendetta so much.]

It was an aside and an observation, which is why it was bracketed.      Under the guise of good of pure intentions, you were very keen on repeatedly attacking my character and reputation based on third-hand false gossip.   While you apologized for this, and I appreciate your apology.  But your silence now is telling, and my observation stands.

The website now has a verifiable vendetta set out to "make a fool" of a poster.  Yet, as I expected, your sense of justice, indignation, and outrage have left you. 

Why am I not surprised?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I was NOT part of the private email discussion where you quoted Tom Paul.   I WAS part of a private email thread where he seemed to be reaching out to Ran and a number of us with his idea for a countervailing IMO piece.

My silence was an attempt to DEFUSE what I woke up to this morning...an escalating situation that has gone public again.   I could see that this would ultimately result in those clubs shutting down their access to anyone.   WHY is that a good thing?   WHY wouldn't you want to stop that undesirable result??

Even though I wasn't on the private email, I have little doubt that Tom Paul said that.   There is a lot of acriomony here and I've been part of it.   I thought I did the manly thing and publicly apologized to you, and privately as well.

At this juncture, David...I don't think any of us require others to make fools of us...we are doing a helluva job doing that TO OURSELVES.

Let me ask what we're gaining here?   

I asked you, very politely, to consider removing your posts.   I asked you three times, trying to turn this into a positive or at least non-contentious direction.

Each time I was either ignored, or now, in your latest post, you have decided to BOLD your comments to me.   

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt as a person looking to find the facts, wherever they might lead.

It makes me wonder why you're doing what you're presently doing, David.   

I'm done here...again.    We both now have a pretty clear idea of what those MCC meeting minutes say and I find no reason to personally investigate further.   I am quite confident now that there is little that has been mythically exaggerated about the story of the creation of Merion East and nothing that changes what has been the historical record and prevailing understanding, beyond the open question of Hugh Wilson's voyage{s}, length{s}, and timing.

That being said, I have to say that I've learned a lot from this process, and therefore do want to thank you for your research, hard work, and guts to go public with your assertions.   While I did not agree with your interpretation of most events, it did cause all of us to dig deeper and in the process those historic events ultimately did become clearer. 

If additional evidence ever surfaces after today, I'll look in and comment if I feel I have something to add, or challenge if I feel that something isn't correct.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what else I can say that I haven't already.   I'm sorry thing have reached this point for all of us.     

[DMoriarty]

 TomPaul

I agree 100% that this is not the appropriate place for this discussion, but you ought to talk to Wayne about that. I privately asked him a few questions about what he found.  Instead of providing me the courtesy of a private response to my private request, he chose to use  this forum for rhetorical purposes and for his own own continued self-aggrandizement, to try to convince readers that:
1)  His actions have been and will continue to be beyond reproach.
2)  My actions have been and continue to be disrespectful to the clubs involved.   

Both these notions are outrageous.  While his "question" was meant by him to be rhetorical, he asked for our "perspective" and I am giving him mine.

A few points of clarification:
1.   I did not “cut and paste” your emails into my post.   You made those statements in a thread.   

2.   I have neither baited nor brow beat Wayne, nor demanded he turn over any information to me.    In fact I did not even request that he provide me with any of the documents he recently reviewed.  Rather, I asked him a few specific questions about what he found and he ignored me.  I would rather not post my private emails to Wayne, but if the two of you continue to misrepresent my actions, I will.

3.   Normally it would be none of my business that you like to pretend to speak for Merion, but it becomes my business when you make representations on their behalf to or about me.    You have done this repeatedly on the board and off.  Some of your representations have been very specific and have turned out to be absolutely false.   

4.  As for your latest offer of cooperation, we both know it is only for show.  Why else tout it online?  As you explained it to MacWood, your version of cooperation involves  MacWood and me providing you with our research and analysis, but having no other involvement in the process.  Not what I had in mind.   Plus, your dishonesty, rudeness, and pomposity makes it difficult for me to even deal with you here, so it would be impossible to work with you.  I have no desire to taint my name by further associating it with yours.

Mike Cirba. 

I did NOT post TEPaul’s emails.  He made those statements right here on these boards.   

And we do not know what is in that information because TEPaul is totally unreliable, and neither Wayne nor TEPaul can be trusted be bring out the entire story.  They have proven that.   You guys have declared my essay to be disproven five or six times, and every time you have been wrong.  Yet you expect me to believe that this time it is different without even seeing the source material. 

Plus, even TEPaul’s stilted and unreliable version leaves open a lot of possibilities.   Not having seen the minutes, my guess is that the NGLA meeting was crucial in the planning process, that a number of alternatives were considered at that meeting, that Wilson and his committeemen tried those alternatives on the ground, and that M&W returned to help them figure it out. 

Of course, how could I know? 

[TEPaul]

David:

That's enough now. It's almost as if you've become hysterical here. No one needs that. Not Merion, not Wayne and not this website.

We plan to write an IMO essay of what we feel, and Merion feels, is the true architectural history of Merion! But all of it will be, only can be, and is, more detail from the MCC board meeting minutes that completely supports those two reports of the Wilson Brothers that we AND Merion have always stood behind and you have essentially either dismissed or ignored throughout this entire excercise including your own essay and the critique and discussion of it on this website.

To promote the notion that you have in your essay, that Macdonald routed this course in 1910 with some help from future committeemen Francis and Lloyd, only to have Wilson and his committee simply construct to it in 1911, flies in the face of the reports of the Wilson brothers. Essentially your essay tries to refute what those reports said by both ignoring them or dismissing them and failing to engage in a discussion of what they really mean; there is just no other way to slice it.

We have told you for it seems weeks now that if you continued to dismiss or ignore the substance of those two reports by the Wilson brothers, or fail to engage us in a close analysis of what they both mean, it would probably end up being at the risk of the entire credibility of your essay. But you didn't listen. You continued to dismiss or ignore and fail to engage us in a discussion of those two seminal reports. And I'm afraid that's what will happen because those two reports, backed up with the heretofore unreported detail from those board meeting minutes happens to be the truth of how Merion East was created and who did it.

To disseminate that MCC meeting minute material and the detail in it, permission from the two clubs will need to be gotten and we will try to do that. We don't need you to do that because frankly you can't do that.

If and when that happens you will get ALL the information anyone we know of is aware of and you will get it at the same time and in the same manner as anyone and everyone else on this website.

Can you live with that? And if not, why not?

[DMoriarty]

. . . those two reports of the Wilson Brothers that we AND Merion have always stood behind and you have essentially either dismissed or ignored throughout this entire excercise including your own essay and the critique and discussion of it on this website.
. . .
flies in the face of the reports of the Wilson brothers. Essentially your essay tries to refute what those reports said by both ignoring them or dismissing them and failing to engage in a discussion of what they really mean; there is just no other way to slice it.
. . .
We have told you for it seems weeks now that if you continued to dismiss or ignore the substance of those two reports by the Wilson brothers, or fail to engage us in a close analysis of what they both mean, it would probably end up being at the risk of the entire credibility of your essay. But you didn't listen. You continued to dismiss or ignore and fail to engage us in a discussion of those two seminal reports. And I'm afraid that's what will happen because those two reports, backed up with the heretofore unreported detail from those board meeting minutes happens to be the truth of how Merion East was created and who did it.

This is the the your latest rationalization for playing games with these clubs' source material?   I dismissed the Hugh and Alan Wilson essays?   Have you read my essay?

Your limb has broken and you are treading air like Wiley E. Coyote.

If and when that happens you will get ALL the information anyone we know of is aware of and you will get it at the same time and in the same manner as anyone and everyone else on this website.

Can you live with that? And if not, why not?"

Let's not pretend I have a choice.  The real question is, can you guys live with it?  More particularly, can Wayne live with it?  And can his club live with him playing petty "one-up" games with their history and heritage? 

You are an old hat when it comes to intellectual deception and outright deceit.  But is Wayne  willing to further compromise his own values for the sake of your petty vendetta?  Even if it  further embarrasses his club in the process?

In my opinion, Wayne should listen to his own advice, and insist on some transparency to the process.  Without adequate transparency and review his IMO will be a worse than worthless, it may turn out to do some real damage.

Judging by his past comments, Wayne is in total agreement:

WAYNE MORRISON ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPARENCY AND PEER REVIEW:

I would do your report a lot more justice in a peer review process if I had access to your primary materials in their complete form.  I'm not out to embarrass you or to be confrontational.  I want to get at the truth as well.  I don't have an emotional investment in Hugh Wilson's role at Merion.
. . .
Allowing limited information to bias an investigation often results in significant mistakes.  Research should never deviate from the scientific method if one's goal is to come up with unbiased conclusions or educated assumptions, which must be presented as such.
. . .
One of the goals of the USGA Golf Architecture Archives and Research Center is to disseminate primary sources of information for all to study.  . . . Such transparent sources allow peer review of the secondary content.  The lack of peer review in golf architecture history to date has led to a number of errors and mis-attributions.
. . .
When Tom MacWood and David Moriarty conduct their exhaustive efforts and come up with their conclusions, right or wrong, they should be obligated to share that information with the clubs involved as a first step, as a matter of courtesy.  They should allow peer review during their processes.  It is vital to do so.
. . .
{to Tom MacWood} As you are surely aware, peer review and corroboration are part of the research process.  This should apply to you just like everyone else
. . .
Why doesn't Tom present his 5-part essay to an approapriate academician and lets see what he/she says?  Give it the peer (I use the term loosely here) review required of research and see if it stands the test.
. . .
I would like a knowledgeable independent to provide the necessary review.  There was some excellent (and not so excellent) analysis on here and I think we'd all be better served to have a proper academic review. 
. . .
I would also send it to a complete independent.  The academic does not have to be an expert on golf architecture history although it would help.  I suspect that an able art historian and researcher would see your research process and resulting conclusions and judge accordingly the merits of the work.

So Wayne, what is up?   Do you really think that everybody's research but yours needs to be transparent and reviewed?   Your words are to live by. 

Surely if you can share the information with TEPaul and he can share it with the world-wide-web, we can figure out an acceptable way to allow me to look at the source documents for research purposes.   I'll update my essay and if you guys still aren't satisfied, you can rip me apart.  Or, if you are, then this entire ugly episode is behind us, and you can take credit for being above the fray, and only interested in the truth.   Either way, you win. 

On the other hand, if you guys produce an IMO without allowing for transparent review of your sources, this entire process will just circle back on itself.   I will still revise my essay, still write part II, and I will also refute your essay in the process.  I am not going to sit around while you guys try to make me "look like a fool."  I'll defend myself and the historical record, so I doubt your IMO will be the last word on any of this. 

More importantly, if you write an IMO without coming clean with your information you will remove all doubt about your subterfuge.  You would be hiding the ball.  Refusing critical review.  Cherry-picking information.   Making a case for your version of history, and refusing to allow it to be challenged or checked.  This would be deceptive and disingenuous to the core.   What is worse, for some bizarre reason you brought the clubs' into this by setting up their policies as your scapegoat to justify for your dodge with the documents.  In so doing, you have potentially subjected them to the same kind of suspicion and distrust that has so far been reserved for the two of you.  Why you would want to subject these clubs to this nonsense is beyond me.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

That big blue box in your last post under the heading "Wayne Morrison on the Importance of transparency and peer review" just might be one of the best efforts and examples I've ever seen of how to take about nine separate remarks out of context in a continuing attempt to embarrass someone! How did you do all that? It's impressive. Do you keep an ongoing file or folder with all his comments over the years to be sliced up out of context and used to distort what he tried to say on his initial post on this thread? 



Here in capitals are his words in his initial post on this thread NOT taken out of context:

“When Tom MacWood and David Moriarty conduct their exhaustive efforts and come up with their conclusions, right or wrong, they should be obligated to share that information with the clubs involved as a first step, as a matter of courtesy.  THEY SHOULD ALLOW PEER REVIEW DURING THEIR PROCESSES.  It is vital to do so.  To present original work on this website without regard to the clubs involved is in bad form.  For the founder and administers of this site to allow this information on the site without some established procedures is reckless and has caused many of these problems.  Is this a blog or a platform striving to achieve a higher potential?  Endorsing such findings without being informed enough to do so is harmful.  Presenting interesting ideas as fact is also causing us problems within the site and beyond.”

I don’t speak for Wayne Morrison but it looks to me like he was talking about researchers sharing their information with THE CLUBS first in a peer review process and not putting it out there for people on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com to peer review it without speaking to the club that’s the subject FIRST.

In that quote of Wayne’s above NOT taken out of context he also talks about the administrators of this website.

Yesterday Wayne and I had a couple of conversations on this very subject with Ran Morrissett and I think we all agreed on the best way to proceed on this site with this subject of the architectural history of Merion. If you’d like me to explain to you what I believe our understanding with Ran Morrissett is I’d be happy to tell you.

My suggestion to you is to get in touch with Ran Morrissett in the next 24 hours any way you can and have a conversation with him about this subject and how best to proceed on here just as we did yesterday.

I would also suggest that either you or Ran Morrissett delete all of your posts on this thread in the next 24 hours just as Mike Cirba asked you to do voluntarily yesterday. I’d also volunteer to delete mine too and ask Mike Cirba to do the same.

If this is not done this kind of ongoing baiting on your part of a club member like Wayne Morrison will begin to destroy all the work many of us have tried to do over the years towards greater cooperation of well known courses and clubs all over America to share their historical material on the Internet and particularly with this new USGA Architecture Archive. Yesterday another club spoke to me that they had no desire to put their historical material on the Internet and have their history treated this way in this kind of almost hysterical atmosphere that everything on here to do with Merion has recently become with your participation.

When some of us on that humorous group email of Pat Mucci’s asked you to consider coming back on this website we had no idea it would ever get this bad and come to this. No idea at all. This website has never had these kinds of problems with any other single contributor. It hasn’t even been close. Why is that? I do realize some of us have been very responsible for this too but nevertheless this has never happened before with any other single contributor on here---eg something this destructive to both researchers and many of their efforts to generate club cooperation on historical architectural information for other entities and other interests.

So, please, get in touch with Ran and have a conversation with him, as we did yesterday about how to stop this destructiveness and get back on a plan or a process that he endorses on here. I think you may find what he endorses are actually IMOs, yours, ours or anyone else’s, and definitely not this constant bickering on these threads.

Ran, I’m sending you an email to read these recent posts on here and do something to stop this and to create some order here. Yesterday I believe our understanding was that we would write an essay (which we will be doing for the club anyway) with this newly discovered source material and then get the clubs' permission to allow us to put it on here in the IMO section. And then we talked about writing another IMO essays about the dangers of revisionist essays on club histories and how that kind of thing should be "counter-pointed".

From our conversation yesterday, and a few of my emails I think you can tell we have no interest at all in embarrassing David Moriaty, Tom MacWood or anyone else. We just think this is absolutely the right thing to do for a better and clearer understanding of the historical accuracy and integrity of golf course architecture and architects.

[Peter Wagner]

I am not going to sit around while you guys try to make me "look like a fool." 

David / Debbie,

Speaking as an outside observer to this riveting debate I would say you are delusional if you think you haven't looked like a fool on this entire topic.

The emotional content of your posts is that of a 13 year old girl who has been rejected by her peer group.

I'll defend myself and the historical record, so I doubt your IMO will be the last word on any of this. 

When viewed through the 'Debbie 13 year old' glasses this reads:  I'm going to say 'I know you are but what am I' until 2011.

If you have such a schoolgirl crush on Merion and it's history why don't you simply join the club and work your way onto the correct committees to participate.  Hopefully this website isn't known to the Membership Committee because it could make it a little bumpy during the interview phase.

Can't wait to read your next twelve postings on this important debate!

- Peter Wagner

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

A very interesting perspective indeed.

I enjoyed reading your post and perhaps you may have a point. I have no axe to grind, but after reading many of his various comments I have wondered why David bothered to return.

I also like the suggestion about joining Merion – thanks – you put a smile upon my face.

One of the best posts on the subject, so far

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't like seeing Wayne's and Tom's motives and characters being attacked.  I'm grateful for my email exchanges with them over the year or so that I've been here.  They have always shared information and insight with me very generously, even though I've had nothing to offer them in return. I just had to ask. (I don't like seeing David's motives and character being attacked either, but I don't know him as well.).

There's a saying: "What a man sees and hears has a lot to do with where he's standing, but it has even more to do with the kind of man he is".

This has become very simple and clear to me. Because of who Wayne is and where he stands, I believe he has the most to offer about Merion. If and when he can or decides to offer it -- as an IMO piece -- that will be wonderful.

Others will have and have had a lot to offer on other subjects, Chris Clouser on Maxwell just to name one. If someone thinks they have something more or different to add on Maxwell, they are free to write an IMO piece.

I've never thought this website could become a definitive source for historical or archival material -- the In My Opinion approach is the most workable. But that means that "the marketplace" decides, i.e. someone posts an IMO, and the site grapples with it to a win, lose or draw.   

Peter

[DMoriarty]

I am not going to sit around while you guys try to make me "look like a fool."

David / Debbie,

Speaking as an outside observer to this riveting debate I would say you are delusional if you think you haven't looked like a fool on this entire topic.

The emotional content of your posts is that of a 13 year old girl who has been rejected by her peer group.

I'll defend myself and the historical record, so I doubt your IMO will be the last word on any of this. 

When viewed through the 'Debbie 13 year old' glasses this reads:  I'm going to say 'I know you are but what am I' until 2011.

If you have such a schoolgirl crush on Merion and it's history why don't you simply join the club and work your way onto the correct committees to participate.  Hopefully this website isn't known to the Membership Committee because it could make it a little bumpy during the interview phase.

Can't wait to read your next twelve postings on this important debate!

- Peter Wagner

Peter Wagner,

You are right.  This entire matter is juvenile and I am embarrassed to have been drawn back into it.  My essay speaks for itself and I should have let it.   
 
I apologize to you and any other readers for my behavior.

[Peter Wagner]

Peter Wagner,

You are right.  This entire matter is juvenile and I am embarrassed to have been drawn back into it.  My essay speaks for itself and I should have let it.   
 
I apologize to you and any other readers for my behavior.

David,
Thanks for your apology and I cheerfully accept it!  I'm looking forward to many discussions on many golf topics with you as we all move forward.  Sorry for my somewhat harsh words.
Best,
Peter

[TEPaul]

David and others:

I apologize to you and any and all others for my behavior too. I'd like to put it in the past and get on with it because there really are bigger fish to fry both on here and out there than just arguing about behavior or even processes. I don't think we ever will put our bad behavior in the past behind us if we continue to talk about it though. So let's just drop that subject of behavior and get back to architecture and the details of it historically and otherwise.

Then, without further comment, let us write an IMO essay on our take on the details of the history and creation of Merion East. When it’s done we then need to get permission from the two clubs to give it to Ran Morrissett to put it on the IMO section. It will not be adversarial or any attack on you or attempt to embarrass you. It’ll just be our IMO essay on how we believe Merion was created and by whom that’s reflected in some old source material from MCC from 1910 and 1911.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()