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.
David, I agree that this is a key point, but the meaning of the point is, to me, still somewhat of a mystery. I think that your timeline clearly shows that the Wilson trip as originally reported, with M&W as "glorified travel agents" (who, incidentally, coined this phrase?) didn't happen as has been repeatedly reported over time. Thus, the importance of that NGLA visit may have been minimized. My question is, on what basis can we then go the other direction and elevate the nature of that meeting to the point that it was about specific routing or design work on Merion East? That is my basic question. If this is something you feel you explained fully in your essay, then as a reader I have to say that I didn't "get it," and would appreciate it if you would explain further.
Kirk, I should have been more specific and clear about this in my essay. I will explain further, but I don't feel like this is the proper time or place for it.
Do you mind taking a look at my response above to your post about revisionism. I am interested in your take on it. Thanks.
______________________
"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.
Sorry Tom, I don't use emoticons, except in satire. But generally when I reference pouring Merlot over Lucky Charms, or whenever I reference children's cereal, I am joking. I hope this helps.
__________________________
"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.
I think this "academic scholar" must be using his reputation to further his own agenda.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would cast general aspersions over another's work without backing it up with facts.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would go behind the back of another to
privately attack the foundation and methodology of another researcher.
-- Even the most dense "academic scholar" knows critiques of another's work must necessarily be subject to at least the same standards of review that the scholar is requiring for the work he or she is criticizing.
-- No self-respecting scholar would ever take anonymous pot shots or spread false rumors about another researcher, nor try to trash talk or gossip about another researcher without giving that researcher a chance to respond.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would an allow misguided friends or associates to conduct witch hunts based on the "scholar's" gossip.
-- No self-respecting "academic scholar" would hold himself out as an expert in a field other than his own.
To me, your "academic scholar" must be a fraud, and an extremely passive-aggressive one at that. And he certianly appears to have his own agenda. In fact, it almost seems as if this scholar is on a mission to prove that this website has lost it's way or something. Why else contact Ran instead of me? He seems to be dancing around behind the scenes pulling your strings, and the strings of others. Surely you guys are not going to rely on this joker's "expertise" when it comes to your paper, because given his or her behavior, he or she has absolutely zero credibility as a scholar on these issues.
A "scholar" ought not to let his or her emotions run a way with him or her, causing him or her to abandon scholarship for partisan rhetoric. Maybe he or she would be more comfortable in a discipline where the scholarship is more black and white, say perhaps . . . Entomology, where the "scholar" could study annoying little pests or something. Seems like he or she might be comfortable there.
_________________________________
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
I did not say that it wasn't possible for Wilson to have been the driving force behind the initial creation of Merion East. I have no idea whether that was possible or not, because there are too many other intervening factors involved. It is impossible to isolate just this one fact (that he did not travel) from all the others, like the NGLA meeting and M&W's course visits.
What I said was that I do not think he was the driving force behind the design.
_______________________________________
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.
Translation:
Come on Cirba, you are embarrassing us by continuing to harp on this issue. Never mind that we have fought tooth and nail to keep the legend alive for the past 1 1/2 years. EVEN THOUGH WE DONT WANT TO ADMIT THIS OUTRIGHT, we now know we were wrong, so we have got to change tactics. Never mind what we said for years about the importance of the trip, the new party line is that the trip did not matter one way or another. Didn't you get the memo? I am glad you finally understand Mike.
___________________
"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."
Tom MacWood:
I'm sure that would be just fine when we write a report. But this is not a report, it's the discussion section of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Maybe you think it's the same thing. I don't.
More irony. TEPaul is criticizing me for not properly dealing with the source material, but using as his support the supposed statements of an anonomous researcher who he refused to name. And who says double standards do not exist!
TEPaul, this all reminds me of the
prestigious professional Canadian researcher you invented a couple of years ago to try and convince me to send my posts to you for vetting before I posted them. Your fictional Canadian researcher insisted on anonymity too as I recall. Maybe the two know each other? Perhaps they could attend a Passive-Aggressive Conference together and play some golf.
I think I have more respect for the Canadian one you made up, rather than this current one, who unfortunately is probably real. They both have about the same credibility, though.
________________________