David Moriarty wants facts. So now I’m going to give you just facts, nothing more. These are facts that have been on this DG for two months. Below from a post of his today he recounts that he was met by extreme hostility before his essay came out. There was none of that at all---nothing. Matter of fact, in a group email exchange from Pat Mucci on another subject entirely I asked David Moriarty if he would please consider coming back. I made the same request to Tom MacWood on that group email.
All we did is simply wait for his essay for about two weeks. He did provide a brief outline in that group email on what points he would cover, nothing more. I never asked him anything about his research material or where it may have come from. I still don’t know that and it’s never mattered to me. Perhaps two or three weeks into these threads following his essay I asked him if he'd ever been in contact with Merion because I'd never known. He certainly never volunteered to tell me anything about any of it. Below he seems to try to make it look like we warned him that Merion would be resistant to his research and essay. That never happened all, not an iota. We had no idea what his essay was going to be about and either did anyone else at Merion but he certainly makes it look that way. Basically none of us knew a thing. All any of us did was wait.
He makes it sound like all we did is threaten and bully him both before his essay and as soon as it came out. So I’d like you all to judge that for yourselves. Just below is what he said today happened back then before his essay came out and as soon as it came out. Following that is the first post from me followed by the first post from Wayne Morrison. You Judge for yourselves if it looks like anything remotely like hostility. I’d say it looks to be just about the opposite!
My Decision Not to Contact Merion
I considered providing Merion with an advanced copy, and even discussed it with Ran, but I ultimately decided against it.
Whenever I had previously tried to discuss Merion, my efforts met nothing but extreme hostility and resistance from those associated with or claiming to be speaking for the club. More than that, I had been told specifically, repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms that the powers at Merion, including the club historian and chairs and members of various key committees, had said that they were extremely upset that I was even researching Merion’s history, wanted me to stop, and wanted nothing to do with me. (While I did not know it until recently, these were apparently lies, told to get me to stop looking into Merion.)
So my concern was that presenting the work to Merion would have accomplished nothing positive but would have creates a number of problems. I feared they would have tried to stop me or delay me from releasing it, or that they would have given it to Wayne and TEPaul, who undoubtedly would have done everything they could to discredit me and my essay and to stop me from releasing it before anyone even got a chance to read it. Those who have been around for a while may recall the incessant bullying, nastiness, and ugliness directed toward Tom MacWood when these guys got word he was researching Pine Valley and Crump. I wanted no part of that.
As it turns out, some of my concerns were at least partially justified. What I thought were private communications with Merion somehow immediately found their way to TEPaul who promptly tried to use them rhetorically against me on the boards. I doubt that was Merion’s intent, but I also doubt that they fully understand that if they involve Wayne he will inevitably involve TEPaul, and that TEPaul knows no bounds when it comes to trying to protect what he feels is his to protect.
Now I have few questions for all of you:
When it first leaked out that I was working on something that significantly contradicted the accepted notion of Merion’s history, where was the outcry for me to go to Merion first before releasing it?
As I recall, there was none. To the contrary, there was a frenzy of attacks and criticisms because I wanted to finish the essay before posting it. Those criticizing me now for not having gone to Merion are some of the same ones who demanded then that I post everything I had immediately. They could not even wait for the essay to be finished!
Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul were certainly involved in those pre-essay “discussions.” In fact, before even coming back to the site I forewarned Wayne, Tom Paul, and a number of other posters that I was coming back to openly, honestly, and frankly discuss Merion, and that my ideas would very likely be cutting against much of the accepted notion of Merion’s history. I even gave them a sampling of the kinds of contentions I would raise. I asked them, specifically, if they had any problem with any of that.
If Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul or anyone else thought that I needed to go to Merion first, then why did they not tell me so before? Everyone had ample opportunity to do so.
The fact is, this whole notion is being used as yet another distraction to detract from the substance of my essay, and as an excuse for Wayne and TEPaul to continue to try and trash me and my essay without allowing me to verify any of their claims.
From TEPaul:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2008, 11:26:31 am »
Thanks Ran and David! I, for one, am glad this "White Paper" is finally here.
I haven't had a chance to do more than scan it but I'm looking forward to analyzing the credibility of particularly this idea that H.H. Barker essentially routed the land that is Merion East golf course and that Macdonald and Whigam (and/or Barker) essentially "designed" the holes that basically became Merion East.
THAT, most certianly is something that the history of Merion GC does not contemplate or remotely mention in any way, or ever has to my knowledge, regarding the creation of Merion East, the golf course. As to whether that is just unsupportable speculation promoted by a series of preceding events, or is, in fact, something about which there is some hard provable evidence, I guess we will just have to see with some really good analyses of all the other information extant about the creation of Merion East golf course.
David, that looks to be a lot of work, and congratulations from me on doing it all. We're certainly looking forward to analyzing it carefully, but I should note here and now that simply doing a lot of work (analogous example---Tom MacWood's five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf") both shouldn't and won't NECESSARILY pass in and of itself as indicating an accurate historical reexamination of Merion East's golf course and its entire creation, or anything else, for that matter.
Let's have a really good AND CIVIL analysis of and dicussion on this paper!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 11:29:55 am by TEPaul »
From Wayne Morrison:
Re: David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under I
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2008, 02:34:08 pm »
David,
I congratulate you for putting forth such a tremendous effort, and to think this is only part 1. You must have had access to board records of the Cricket Club that I have not yet seen. While my research has concentrated on Wm Flynn's work subsequent to the opening of the East Course (he was not present for the initial construction of the course), I am keenly interested in the earliest iteration of the East Course. If possible, I would like to have a look at some of the primary assets you utilized in the making of this essay. Reading the article (I must do so in a more thorough fashion) clearly indicates that you have material on hand that I have never seen and which the club is unaware. I guess you found the Sayers scrapbooks as some information you mentioned is contained in there.
I have found some inconsistencies and errors in my initial review and hope to give it a more concerted effort over the next week or so. Before jumping to conclusions (as others have done) I want to give this report the consideration it deserves. I will be happy to share with you my findings. Clearly the record needs to include some of your discoveries though I am hesitant to say to what extent that history is revised by them. In fact, if your findings regarding Hugh Wilson's lack of design involvement proves correct (and I am not presuming that it does as yet) then it has some profound impacts on matters closer to my field of study.
I must say that I am concerned or rather alarmed by the quick rush to judgment by Ran, Tom H and others that agree with the findings without a more informed understanding of the course and its history and certainly without an exhaustive study of the essay. The only way they can agree with David's conclusions are if they take for granted or assume what he states is correct. While there are an awful lot of facts presented, and potentially very important ones at that, some of the conclusions are troublesome and require a great deal of consideration. Something that neither Ran nor Tom has done and on a subject that neither one of them knows very much about.
While the conclusions they say are obvious and proven may turn out to be for the most part true, any judgment to that effect is premature and poorly considered at this stage.