[TEPaul]

"The fact that there is no report prior to 1912 would have been one clue. I also think that in focusing on what happened on the East there has been a tendency to forget the West course was being projected during this time frame. That may have led to some of the errors in interpretation. Thankfully David's research identified this major mistake."


Alan Wilson's report reflects the events surrounding the development of the West course very accurately. One of the problems with David Moriarty's research and essay is he did not deal with Alan Wilson's report well at all and we always told him he would risk the accuracy of his report if he did not consider it more carefully rather than either ignoring it, dismissing it or rationalizing away the meaning of what it said.

Matter of fact, in his bibliography notes in his essay, he only mentioned that he was aware of only certain portions of Alan Wilson's reports because they were deleted later deleted from this website.

This led one important observer on here who certainly has a great foundation in academic scholarship and who read his essay to remark that treating one of the most important source documents in that manner can only be considered really poor scholarship (and this has promoted us to allow this observer to review anything we write before we put it out there ). He even said that very much should have been picked up on and altered before his essay was put on this website. I could not agree more. You reviewed that essay, right, Tom MacWood? Why didn't you pick up on that?

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, Sean - that seems to be the heart of it to me too. If one assumes that Wilson could have led the design process of Merion's earliest iteration without having a trip to the UK under his belt, then the timing of any such trip becomes irrelevant. On the other hand, if one assumes that even the earliest iteration could not have been designed by Wilson without substantially more assistance by M&W than they've always and traditionally been given for UNLESS Wilson had gone to the UK, then of course the timing becomes very relevant.

To me, it seems entirely plausible to assume that a smart and eager and hard-working amateur like Wilson could have led the design process of the earliest iteration without having gone to the UK beforehand -- espeically since the earliest form of that first iteration was clearly subject to much change in the months and years after opening (which would fit in with the idea of a later trip by Wilson).

Peter

[TEPaul]

"For the fourth time.  I do understand.  But I am not going to tell you why you asked me.  That would be presumptuous of me."


That's very interesting indeed!

In my opinion, it can't have to do with anything other than your continuous inclination to both evade or avoid facts and realities which are, unfortunately for you, continuously proving you and your assumptions and premises and conclusion in your essay wrong, as well as most of the rest of what you've been saying on these threads.

But I can't say I blame you as you certainly have proven over the years you are virtually incapable of admitting mistakes, which of course does nothing much more than continue to waste everyone's time. The thing I feel most are seeing is the remarkable lengths into unreality and denial you are willing to go to keep doing that which has become a pretty sad charade, at this point.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Does the important observer who has a great foundation in academic scholarship have a name?

Did the important observer notice David quoted from the letter? We both had a transcript of the letter.

[TEPaul]

"David
I am going to ask a straight forward question.  Do you or do you not believe that Wilson (with the help and advice of various people) could have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion without ever setting foot on British soil?"


Sean:

Why don't you just read what he says in his essay on that point? That's what we've all been doing and that's one of the reasons for many of our responses.

I've even said on here a number of times, that, in my opinion, this is perhaps the very thing that has created very much of a dilemma for both Tom MacWood AND David Moriarty in understanding some of these architects like Wilson and the courses they did!!

In other words, for whatever their reasons, they have just never been able to understand and therefore believe that a man like Hugh I. Wilson was capable of doing what he did do.

Therefore, those two pretty much think they need to find SOMEONE to basically DO IT FOR Wilson. This seems to be what they have both presumed with Wilson and Macdonald, and the very same thing Tom MacWood did with Crump and Colt and perhaps even the same thing he tried to do with Willie Park Jr and a Horace Hutchinson.

This is the very basis of what professor Loewen calls an historic "No-Can-Doism" mentality.  

[DMoriarty]

David

I am going to ask a straight forward question.  Do you or do you not believe that Wilson (with the help and advice of various people) could have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion without ever setting foot on British soil?

Ciao

Whenever anyone claims that they have a straightforward question, it never is.   Given the totality of the circumstances, I don't think he was the creative driving force.  One of these circumstances was that he had never gone abroad to study the great holes.  But there are other circumstances that may have been more significant. 

_______________________

The major mistake David idenitied was the cornerstone of the Merion story. That Hugh Wilson traveled to the UK in 1910. Every historical account is based upon the story Wilson traveled abroad, came back and designed Merion-East.

That was certainly part of it, but the most important error my have been the misunderstanding of the NGLA meeting, where M&W's contributions were reduced to glorified travel agents who offered some general introduction to the principles of golf architecture. 

_________________________________

[/quote]

This led one important observer on here who certainly has a great foundation in academic scholarship and who read his essay to remark that treating one of the most important source documents in that manner can only be considered really poor scholarship (and this has promoted us to allow this observer to review anything we write before we put it out there ). He even said that very much should have been picked up on and altered before his essay was put on this website. I could not agree more. You reviewed that essay, right, Tom MacWood? Why didn't you pick up on that?

Is that the same important researcher and observer who started all the garbage about my ulterior motives and clandestine agenda?  The one who Mike Cirba, bless his heart, got so worked up about for so long?

______________________________

"For the fourth time.  I do understand.  But I am not going to tell you why you asked me.  That would be presumptuous of me."


That's very interesting indeed!

In my opinion, it can't have to do with anything other than your continuous inclination to both evade or avoid facts and realities which are, unfortunately for you, continuously proving you and your assumptions and premises and conclusion in your essay wrong, as well as most of the rest of what you've been saying on these threads.

But I can't say I blame you as you certainly have proven over the years you are virtually incapable of admitting mistakes, which of course does nothing much more than continue to waste everyone's time. The thing I feel most are seeing is the remarkable lengths into unreality and denial you are willing to go to keep doing that which has become a pretty sad charade, at this point.

And with that the true intentions of you asking the question are revealed.

Tom are you really scolding me for refusing to explain why YOU asked a question?  If you want to share why you asked, that is up to you.  I am not here to answer every absurd question you come up with.  What's next?   Are you going to ask me what sort of wine you had for breakfast?  I will say Merlot, over Lucky Charms.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Does the important observer who has a great foundation in academic scholarship have a name?"

Yes, he has a name. Most people do.

"Did the important observer notice David quoted from the letter? We both had a transcript of the letter."

I have no idea what letter you're referring to.

[TEPaul]

"Tom are you really scolding me for refusing to explain why YOU asked a question.  If you want to share why you asked, that is up to you.  I am not here to answer every absurd question you come up with.  What's next?  Are you going to ask me what sort of wine you had for breakfast?  I will say red, over Lucky Charms."


I'm not scolding you at all. I'm just asking you a very simple question of your opinion on Toulmin's mention and you're continuing to avoid it. I think that's indicative of what I mentioned above. But suit yourself, that's fine by me.

The wine for breakfast remark is just another clear example of your insulting and pathetic attitude and behavior on this website. You're sinking lower and lower every day as the facts surrounding the events of Merion East in 1910 and 1911 become clearer and clearer.

And it's a shame really because it's only a golf course and an architect, albeit pretty great ones! 

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said:

"Given the totality of the circumstances, I don't think he was the creative driving force.  One of these circumstances was that he had never gone abroad to study the great holes.  But there are other circumstances that may have been more significant."


Well, Sean, there it is! 

This is his position and the facts of the creation of Merion East will prove him wrong, just as we have said all along!

In the future he can just torture facts, chronologies, reports, and words to death, as he has constantly done in the past, but neither Merion nor anyone else who understands it will be paying any attention. 

[TEPaul]

"Is that the same important researcher and observer who started all the garbage about my ulterior motives and clandestine agenda?  The one who Mike Cirba, bless his heart, got so worked up about for so long?"


I don't know about that. All I know is he gave Ran Morrissett a number of reasons why he felt your essay was pretty poor scholarship. I did talk to him about that in detail later and I see exactly what he means. He will certainly be a "reviewer" for anything I write on this subject in the future. 

[TEPaul]

" If you want to share why you asked, that is up to you."


That's fine, no problem at all and there's certainly nothing nefarious about the question. I only asked it to see if you understood and appreciated that the entire 1910 story of Hugh Wilson going abroad was not within many decades of the events of 1910 and 1911 which very much included Dr. Harry Toulmin. I hope you can now understand the significance of that to what we've been concentrating on and discussing with you and Tom MacWood for over five years which is the events at Merion Ardmore in 1910 and 1911.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
The major mistake David idenitied was the cornerstone of the Merion story. That Hugh Wilson traveled to the UK in 1910. Every historical account is based upon the story Wilson traveled abroad, came back and designed Merion-East.

Tom,

David proved that Hugh Wilson went to Great Britain in 1912 but he certainly did not prove that he didn't go in 1910.  

Until such time as either of you can locate Hugh Wilson anywhere but Europe between March and September of 1910, there is no factual evidence to make the statement you asserted above.

Do you have any other examples of other trips abroad that were not reported at the time?

Tom,

This is getting a little silly.

Joe Bausch has shown that much was written about Hugh Wilson between the late 1890s and the mid teens, yet there is nothing for 1910.

I can't explain that...can you?

Once again...he was a high-visibility guy.   Certainly a guy with a research acumen you have and the resources of Dr. Hurdzan's library and others can find some proof that he wasn't in Europe in 1910.  

Between the Miller library, the Hurdzan library, and anyone else who might be trying desperately to prove the Philadelphia story wrong at this point, someone somehwere must have the answer here if Wilson was in the states??

By the way...

Would either you or David like to explain how Merion could have been routed differently based on their land purchase of 1910/11??  

[TEPaul]

"You lose me here every time.  Not because I don't understand, but because what you are saying is tautological.   The trip happened after 1911, so it couldn't have influenced what happened in 1911.   Hardly groundbreaking at this point, because it was more than covered in my essay.

But what it does impact is the accepted understanding of how Merion was created.  And that is what my paper was about."


Oh no it doesn't! That is not what your paper was about. Let no one on this website or who reads it be deceived any longer by that bit of specious reasoning on your part.

What your essay is about is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what really happened in 1910 and 1911 and definitely not just what people THOUGHT happened perhaps a half century later.

What we have been dealing with for the last five years with you two is the facts and the truth of what really HAPPENED back then in 1910 and 1911 and who did what and when and how in that timeframe only. That timeframe is all that the original creation of Merion East is about----PERIOD! What some story that happened a half century later is about has absolutely nothing to do with it or this subject and the discussion of it for the last five years!

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  the wine on the Lucky Charms comment was a joke. I thought you wanted humor?  Or is it only funny when you do the joking?  Should I have finished with a ?

[TEPaul]

Guys:

How many times am I going to need to tell you that a 1910 trip abroad just has no relevance to who designed Merion East and when, and that includes whether he went in 1910 or HE DIDN'T?


Man, I'll tell you, if this doesn't just prove how extraneous factors that enter into the history of a golf course can completely distort the understanding of what really happened at some particular time then I just can't imagine what could.

Again, it makes no damn difference, so stop talking about it. Whether he went in 1910 or not cannot change the material facts of what MCC's record and meeting minutes and pertinent documents to those meeting minutes shows really happened.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,  the wine on the Lucky Charms comment was a joke. I thought you wanted humor?  Or is it only funny when you do the joking?  Should I have finished with a   ?"


No, thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate that, and as you know I love humor on here. And yes I guess with remarks like that intended to be a joke you probably should always use some sort of emoticon as most people on here don't seem to get the gist of jokes without them, unfortunately.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I understand that it doesn't matter if Wilson went abroad before 1912 as far as who routed, designed, and layed out Merion, but;

Don't you think if someone claims that they have proven that Hugh Wilson wasn't in Europe in 1910 they should at least be asked to prove that he was somewhere else...anywhere...during the first nine months of the year??

[Sean_A]

David

I am going to ask a straight forward question.  Do you or do you not believe that Wilson (with the help and advice of various people) could have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion without ever setting foot on British soil?

Ciao

Whenever anyone claims that they have a straightforward question, it never is.   Given the totality of the circumstances, I don't think he was the creative driving force.  One of these circumstances was that he had never gone abroad to study the great holes.  But there are other circumstances that may have been more significant. 

_______________________

David

The lawyer in you is coming out.  It was a straightforward yes or no question.  I am surprised you answered that it wasn't possible for Wilson to have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion, but you are entitled to your opinion.  I will say that I don't believe your essay came anywhere near establishing this opinion with much credibility.  However, I do look forward to part II.  I am sure there will be a surprise or two included.

Ciao

[Thomas MacWood]

This led one important observer on here who certainly has a great foundation in academic scholarship and who read his essay to remark that treating one of the most important source documents in that manner can only be considered really poor scholarship (and this has promoted us to allow this observer to review anything we write before we put it out there ). He even said that very much should have been picked up on and altered before his essay was put on this website. I could not agree more. You reviewed that essay, right, Tom MacWood? Why didn't you pick up on that?

TE
Is there a reason why you don't reveal the name of your important observer and scholar? This is not first time you have mentioned he will be vetting what you write. It appears you feel this will give your account added credibility. Isn't transparency an integral part of academic scholarship? Ask your expert if that is considered good scholarship.

Tom,

David proved that Hugh Wilson went to Great Britain in 1912 but he certainly did not prove that he didn't go in 1910.  

Until such time as either of you can locate Hugh Wilson anywhere but Europe between March and September of 1910, there is no factual evidence to make the statement you asserted above.

Mike
I'm glad to see we are still holding out hope that Wilson went abroad in 1910, came back and designed the golf course. These stories die hard.

Tom,

This is getting a little silly.

Joe Bausch has shown that much was written about Hugh Wilson between the late 1890s and the mid teens, yet there is nothing for 1910.

I can't explain that...can you?

Once again...he was a high-visibility guy.   Certainly a guy with a research acumen you have and the resources of Dr. Hurdzan's library and others can find some proof that he wasn't in Europe in 1910.  

Between the Miller library, the Hurdzan library, and anyone else who might be trying desperately to prove the Philadelphia story wrong at this point, someone somehwere must have the answer here if Wilson was in the states??

By the way...

Would either you or David like to explain how Merion could have been routed differently based on their land purchase of 1910/11??  

You brought up other UK travellers to explain why there was no mention prior to 1912. I just figured you had examples.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Wilson was in Argentina in 1910? Hmmm?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I don't have it in front of me but I believe it might have been Joe Bausch who showed the article mentioning how it was all the vogue and fashion for clubs to send someone to Europe to study the courses and how that wouldn't be necessary any longer now that Macdonald was building NGLA.   

Surely you've seen it?

If you or David can place Hugh Wilson somewhere other than Europe between say March-Sept 1910, please let's see it.   The absence of evidence is not evidence.

Otherwise, in the immortal words of Stevie Wonder, "you haven't done nothin'". 

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
It was common but in most cases they reported the trips at the time.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Again, a trip before 1912 I just don't see making any difference to the interpretation of what happened given these board minutes et al.

But if Wilson did go over there for seven months in 1910 one really does wonder why he didn't say that in his own report. For the longest time I thought it possible that he may've gotten his year dates wrong in his report when he mentioned 1911 because he really did get two other year dates wrong on the next page involving Merion West. But now I can see so clearly with this new material that it just doesn't matter.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Understood...I'll look forward to seeing what's been uncovered once you guys get permission.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Is there a reason why you don't reveal the name of your important observer and scholar? This is not first time you have mentioned he will be vetting what you write. It appears you feel this will give your account added credibility. Isn't transparency an integral part of academic scholarship? Ask your expert if that is considered good scholarship."

Tom MacWood:

I don't believe I know what you mean by transparency.

Is there a reason why I don't mention the name of the observer I mentioned. Yes there is, and it's that he may not want his name mentioned on here. Do you have a problem with that and if so why is that? It sure does occur to me that a couple of you guys demand to know the background behind everything that is said on here in the context of opinion. Well, that's fine, continue to demand it but you're not going to get everything you demand from me particularly if and when I see things differently than you two do----which actually is quite regularly.

You do things your way and I'll do things my way. And if a guy like David Moriarty thinks he's going to turn this discussion section on here into something like a court of law with a number of those required procedures such as "discovery" then let him think that but he's not going to force crap like that on me or probably most others on here who provide their OPINIONS on things.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
By transparency I mean if you are going to utilize this expert to give your account legitimacy, and also use him as a source of criticizing a competing report you must reveal his identity.

Otherwise how can an independent observer judge if he is credible or not, or if he even exists? Using a make believe or unquailifed scholar is poor scholarship.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()