The Final Straw

[TEPaul]

"You guys got to let this go, at the end of the day this is only a website.  If you can't sleep at night over something said on GCA then your life needs a little perspective.  Maybe a little self imposed break ala Tommy N  is in order."


Craig:

I think you're absolutely right, I really do. It's time to take a break from this website whether we unregister and leave or just stop posting. Certainly Wayne and I at least are considering doing just that. We don't really want to be part of an atmosphere like this guy has created on here since he returned in the last month and a half or so, certainly with this baiting of the two of us over research and interpretation and such. But don't for a moment think that Merion is not aware of this too and is concerned about it! And you can add to this that Wayne and I just thought a whole lot more people on here would be able to see what this highly speculative, speciously reasoned essay is about, certainly including Ran Morrissett who seemingly rather proudly hung the essay on here.

We talked to him on the phone the other day and he said he thought the essay was pretty neat and that was proven when some guy in Carolina came up to him and said: "Wow what a neat article, I never knew C.B. Macdonald routed Merion East."

We said: Jeeesus Christ Man, that is the very thing we're trying to prevent because all the facts surrounding the creation of Merion disprove THAT! He just said: "Oh, I didn't know that", and that's when he agreed that we should do a straight factual timeline history of this era of Merion and maybe another essay counterpointing Moriarty's. Ran doesn't seem to like all the "noise" on these threads and I don't blame him on that. He seems to like well-researched IMOs and I don't blame him for that either! 

But the doubly disappointing thing to us is the administrators of this website don't seem interested in even getting involved to resolve this kind of thing and the way TommyN tells it that's the very thing that caused him to want to leave and not come back.   


But I'll tell you one thing, this is certainly not some competition of who stays on here---eg Moriarty or us. It seems to us that he is the only one who has ever created an atmosphere on here like this and we just don't see the point in having that go on forever.

[Mark Pearce]

This entire Merion episode has reflected badly on every one of its major participants.  Through the limited exposure I have had to each of them through this website these are, without exception, people I had developed significant respect for.  Their behaviour in relation to this dispute has eroded that respect, which saddens me greatly.  The continued bickering, which reminds me of my adolescent son and his younger brothers at their (thankfully still rare) worst simply serves to continue that erosion.  It doesn't prove anything or win any arguments, the opportunity to do that went long ago.  I'm afraid that my interest in Merion and its history is another victim of this absurd, demeaning episode. 

I know others have said it before and I'm sure my plea won't have any more joy than theirs but Mike, Tom, David and company - please stop.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I can't imagine this site without you. However, if taking time off means the Flynn book moves forward, then maybe its a good idea for you and Wayne to get on with some real work!

[Mike_Young]

Would it be fair to call this the latest Merion thread?

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom,

          I think Ran and Ben have been consistent in their laissez-faire attitude towards the day to day operations of GCA.  My understanding is that they are busy guys with young families.  I always thought that Tommy was more affected by the stuff going on behind the scenes.  I do hope he comes back to GCA one day but mostly I wish him well.

[TEPaul]

"I know others have said it before and I'm sure my plea won't have any more joy than theirs..."


No, Mark (and Jeff) I hear you and I will take your plea into consideration and to heart and just stop posting on here on these Merion threads or anything else this guy is inovlved in on here as Wayne has probably already done.

If the participatants on here want to believe that essay of his they can be our guests because we just don't really care what they think about Merion anymore and certainly Merion doesn't.

We were hoping for a good review and critique of this essay but it's obvious day after day the only thing he cares about is simply never been shown to be wrong about anything he's said about Merion.

If he's not going to see the obvious as we do then I'm cool with that now and will quit this at this point.

Thanks for the advice, and I do take it to heart.

Our report on Merion will be disseminated with all the source material we've mentioned for serious researchers to consider, just probably not on here. And again, that's Wayne's call because he's the Merion member.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Wayne calls it ‘The Final Straw’

I have spent sometime reread as much of these Merion Posts as my brain will allow. I am not going to voice an opinion on the subject.

However I will make the following statement

I wish that David had never returned to GCA.com. It’s not his opinion that is the problem it’s the way he puts his case, those little comments, the digs.
Yesterdays comment after just apologising a few days earlier finished it for me
“I was under the impression that, with regard to Merion, you and Wayne had taken your ball and gone home, refusing to play anymore”. 
There was just no need for that, deliberately confrontational.

I am coming to the conclusion that you knew what reaction you would generate and deliberately set out to generate confrontation. Why I don’t know but I believe you have hurt this site by your unhelpful comments and complaints which seem to have started on or around day one.

I have always believed in the right of each of us to have an opinion but you have gone passed that and appear to deliberately seek to offend. Are you seeking revenge on certain individuals and/or this site, I just can’t see the sense in it or what you ultimately hope to achieve.

The truth is what matters, in getting to the truth I have sometime made mistakes and expect to continue making mistakes in the future. We all make mistakes but I do not agree with your childish comments, its down right insulting and I had hoped that Peter’s comment and your apologies last week had resolved that issue, apparently not.

I can’t stop you or your opinions, nor do I want too, but I can withdraw from entering into a debate with you. I hope others will follow in the form of a silent debate against your antics. Clearly you have no respect for other Members of GCA.com or Guest reading these posts otherwise you would not make these childish comments. 

Not being involved or knowing anything about Merion and having a love for history I had an open mind, but I can’t bring myself to read them anymore. For that I put the blame fairly and squarely at your door, Thank you, David. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
Tom and I will not post our opinion piece on GCA.com in whole or in part.  ...

I am sorry Melvyn, but which part of this does not sound to you like it's my ball and I am going to take it home with me? That is exactly the thought that popped into my head when I read it!

I know this will not exactly increase my popularity here (as if I had any in the first place), but I have been involved in heated debates on here about the ball issue with TP and DM. (My position has been at odds with both of them.) My personal experience is that I received unfounded personal attacks from TP, while I did not receive any from DM. I found TP to have the tendency to fail to understand what others were writing and to continue to spew back his misunderstanding of it.

That said, I highly value the knowledge and information that TP brings to this site and would sorely miss him if he were to leave.

As far as the Merion issue is concerned, I welcomed and enjoyed the IMO piece by DM. I read only enough of the Merion threads to see that WM and TP were to publish there own IMO piece. That was enough from me. I would read it and decide who presented the best case when it was done.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

I did not read it that way, but making a comment like that after just recently apologising for a previous childish comment shows that the apology was not worth anything.  If you are going to apologise then be sincere.   

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I did not read it that way, but making a comment like that after just recently apologising for a previous childish comment shows that the apology was not worth anything.  If you are going to apologise then be sincere.   

I understand the "I did not read it that way". The rest I don't understand at all. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

The apology I refer to - see Reply #45 Re: A Perspective, If You Please
 Dated May 15, 2008, 08:57:16 am

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

The apology I refer to - see Reply #45 Re: A Perspective, If You Please
 Dated May 15, 2008, 08:57:16 am

Are you saying that David Moriarity and I are the same person?

[TEPaul]

The thing that continues to fascinate me is how all this arguing goes on back and forth about basically can you or can you not PROVE that Santa Claus came down the chimney and routed Merion East----while standing there throughout all this is the best piece of evidence we have of how Merion East and West was DESIGNED and Built---Alan Wilson's report!

There it stands and will continue to, in my opinion----totally unrefuted by anyone who is willing to do more than just dismiss it or ignore it.

Well, I shouldn't say it's the best source in Merion. These meeting minutes are even more detailed with what happened in the late 1910 to mid 1911 timeframe.

But even when they become available I have no doubt the Moriartys of the world will either dismiss what they say too or get into the usual (on here) modus of asking the Clintonian "It depends what the mean of is, is.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

Of course not - what are you talking about?

I just answered your question and pointed out
the apology that was made to Peter and others.

[TEPaul]

"Are you saying that David Moriarity and I are the same person?"


Garland:

That probably depends if it's David Moriarty who tells us you two are the same person, in which case he would probably expect us to believe that too.  
 
 
 
 

[DMoriarty]

Garland,

Here is the apology to which Mr. Morrow must be referring. 

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.

Mr. Morrow,

I am still embarrassed to have gotten back into this embarrassing fray, and am embarrassed that is still going.   My comment to TEPaul that you quote above was meant to try and avoid a continued discussion about the issue.   Given the circumstances, if that post exemplifies my behavior on here, then I can live with that.  It is concise, accurate, and gets the point across.

I have kept one foot in the water because I have an issue with how Wayne, TEPaul, and others have misused (and TEPaul continues to misuse) this new source material.  Wayne has apparently stopped and I commend him for it.  If and when TEPaul stops relying on concealed sources as the basis for his arguments and attacks, then I will be glad to let the issue go.   But as of today he has not.


 I am curious, did you notice TEPaul's apology right below mine?

David and others:

I apologize to you and any and all others for my behavior too.  . . .

I assume from your post that you find TEPaul's comments since to be beyond reproach?  Because I haven't read it that way.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I did not read it that way, but making a comment like that after just recently apologising for a previous childish comment shows that the apology was not worth anything.  If you are going to apologise then be sincere.   

"I did not read it that way" clearly was a response to what I wrote. Had the sentence continued "but David making a comment ..." I would have understood your response. I assumed your discussion of apologizing referred to my "I am sorry, but".

Clearly you read Wayne's post differently than I (and probably many others) did and I am fine with that.

[henrye]

Well, I shouldn't say it's the best source in Merion. These meeting minutes are even more detailed with what happened in the late 1910 to mid 1911 timeframe.

Hopefully they clear up what Wilson's role was pre-1911?  Also, is there any mention of him traveling abroad prior to this time, or as to why he was chosen as the Chairman of the committee?

[TEPaul]

David Moriaty, it has become patently clear to me and it should be clear to everyone else on here that you have no interest at all, NONE, in discussing what went on at Merion in the era you selected for your essay, and of course we understand why---you will be proven wrong and you can't take that. On most of these Merion threads now you have absolutely defaulted any responsibility to discuss what you said in that essay and this has turned into nothing more than you constantly complaining about manners and incivility on here. You should switch over to some website on manners if you can't or won't engage in a discussion on architecture as it relates to the specious reasoning in your essay on Merion and these threads. I don't know what it is about you but every thread you have ever been on on this website has been an unmitigated disaster. Why in the world I ever was so foolish enough to encourage you to come back on this site is absolutely beyond me. You are much worse than you've ever been. It is a totally pathetic display you're carrying on here and I can't imagine what is going on with the administrators of GOLFCLUBALTAS.com to allow it to continue.

[tlavin]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Kalen Braley]

[John Burzynski]

Why not form a separate sub-discussion group for Merion only posts, where all Merion posters and only Merion posters can have it out about all things Merion?  Kind of an anteroom off of the bar room. 

[Garland Bayley]

... the specious reasoning ...

Flame on!

There you go again! Is "specious reasoning" your favorite expression? I took the time to try and find the post on the ball that you made a personal attack on me, but did not find it due to the volume of search results about ball and distance. I did reread a couple where you referred to my "specious reasoning". My profession is based on my ability to reason, and I found your accusations to be more related to your failure to understand things than to my "specious reasoning". As I have written, I have not been reading the Merion thread. However, I read all the stuff where you flew off the handle at David about the ball issue. The primary problem I saw there was your failure to understand what was written. I made attempts to explain to you why what David wrote was not what you were representing it to be, but you rejected my explanations as I observe you do with most anything you don't agree with due to a lack of understanding.

Flame off.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mr Moriarty

I was aware of your previous involvement with GCA.com, but I do not know the reason why you left. I make my own mind up and was more than happy to hopefully listen and learn.

However within a few posts you mentioned how you & Tom MacWood were treated in the past when members of GCA.com and … well you know what you complained about. You mentioned it on more than one occasion, and kept reminding us. Happy to pull others in – why, perhaps to deflect the attention away from you – I don’t know why – yet you produced a very deep document that clearly was full of information and must have consumed many, many hour of research. Why didn’t you just leave it and let your essay do the talking, yes, answer questions but you did not have to go any further. But you did, you made your little comments time and time again.

Then Peter Wagner's post and your apology – great, I thought the debate would go on but again you could not leave it there. By all means respond and answer questions, but you had to play the big man, put another dig in showing your apology was worthless.

As I said it seems so obvious that you must be trying to cause a problem for certain individuals or this site, because I do not believe you to be a stupid man, far from it, but your actions seem very deliberate.

I don’t believe this debate has been worthy of this site. I blame you for that because you had previous knowledge of the existing members and I suspect that you knew the reaction you would generate.

As for TEPaul, and others that’s another matter, but make no assumptions as that seem to get you into deep water, you don’t know what people are thinking . However, as TEPaul did not start this new debate - you did, so my comments are directed at you.

[Adam Clayman]

Open discourse does has it's hurdles. However, I believe it is wrong to condemn the site, or it's administrators.