TEPaul,
I know that MacWood knows more than you do about Myopia for a number of reasons:
-- First, MacWood has made a number of points about Myopia that I have been able to track down and they check out. It is obvious from your posts that most if not all of these points were entirely news to you.
-- Second, as usual your "research" (and I learn the term loosely with you) consists of extensive and blind reliance on Cornish and Whitten and the the club "history." I think all but you must recognize by now that these may be good places to start, but that relying on these sources blindly is fraught with peril. Tom MacWood has again demonstrated this on this very thread. I have a great idea for the archives. Why not just reprint Cornish and Whitten and the club histories online and be done with it? That is all you know.
-- Third and more generally, as far as I can tell, your methodology is not at all geared toward ever getting past a superficial and pre-ordained understanding when it comes to any course. Whether your source be Wayne, Cornish and Whitten, club histories, rumor, innuendo, speculation, or just what you sense in your blue-blood, your sources are almost never FIRST HAND. This by itself makes you pretty worthless when it comes to historical research. Regurgitating someone else's conclusions or making up or guessing at your own unsupported conclusions does not make for historical research. As a consequence, unless you happen to glom on to someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to knowing where to look and what to look for, you are pretty much useless.
Isn't that what you were up to when you secretly approached me shortly after my Merion essay came out? You were trying to sell-out your current writing partner and glom on to my research, weren't you?
David Moriarty:
Obviously I don't think much of you either and I see no reason to discuss anything to do with architecture with you on here anymore, particularly after the charade you pulled on this website with Merion.
Everytime you write this I know exactly why you so don't want me to see your supposed "Report" or its supposed support. It is either full of questionable interpretations, or it is grounded squarely in my research and analysis. Either way you will be exposed if it ever gets out.
In fact, my guess is the long promised "point-by-point counterpoint" idea has been silently scrapped, and instead Wayne has quietly changed a few things in his 3960 page Merion chapter, and he is hoping that everyone will just forget about the promised rebuttal of the "90% of my essay that Wayne claimed was wrong." Am I right? I hope not.
I've offered to get MacWood involved in some of these things a number of times but he won't do it. Perhaps because you and Tom MacWood have a real inflated sense of your own importance you think these clubs are going to call you up and solicit your advice on their histories but I've rarely seen it work that way. One pretty much needs to get in touch with them and try to develop a relationship first. At least that's the way most of the rest of us have done it, unless or until one develops something of a respected reputation for this kind of thing as perhaps the likes Bob Labbance, Brad Klein, Dan Wexler, Goeff Shackelford, Jim Finegan, Bill Quirin and Philip Young have. Apparently you two don't agree with that or understand it. If that's the way you continue to approach this stuff I doubt either of you will be very productive.
Don't you understand that it is you, your rudeness, your arrogance, and your insistence on editorial control that makes Tom MacWood's involvement ultimately impossible. This is also why I have so little hope for the project myself. It should be great, but your arrogance and insistence on running things and controlling things will doom it to failure. Your injecting yourself into the Merion issues has accomplished nothing more than screwing them up. Same goes for Myopia, and just about everything else you get involved with. Why would the USGA project be any different?
Your ego is obviously more important than the USGA project to you, and that is really too bad. Tom MacWood has a lot to offer on a number of topics. So do others. As for me, I have a little to offer on much narrower topics, and laid a pretty good groundwork for a few things. But you are in the way of taking it to where it should be. As usual.
I would have been be glad to tell Myopia that he would like to be in touch with them but it would help to know what it is he has before I do that. He won't even explain it, he continuously skirts the issue of Campbell every which way to Sunday. I don't believe any of these clubs are interested in dealing with people like you two just because you say you have something that can revise their architectural history.
This is nonsense. You said exactly the opposite yesterday. Tom MacWood need not jump through hoops for you. You are not the gatekeeper. We all can see he has information that Myopia ought to have if they care about their history. You are the only thing between him and them. Remove yourself. For once step aside. Be a facilitator instead of a parasite. For once.
Plus, MacWood has told you plenty. He laid it all out for you. Most of what he has left out concerned sources only and he has even told you exactly where to most of those. You are apparently incapable of even doing that for yourself. The only reason you don't try to get Myopia in touch with him is YOUR ARROGANCE. We all pay again for your arrogance.
That charade was pretty much the story with this whole Macdonald/Merion thing with you two. The club was initially pretty interested in seeing information that Macdonald had more to do with their course than they realized but after those who have something to do with that club actually saw your essay and the way you carried on in the discussions of it they weren't interested. These people aren't dumb, Moriarty, all of them are more than capable of recognizing completely tortured logic and a total lack of anything important to their course's architectural history. The way you developed your assumptions and conclusion in that essay is a joke to people who know that club and the history of its courses. Because of that there probably wont't be a next time in that type of attempt with any of these clubs familiar with this website.
Again Tom, I had (and have) information that really ought to be in Merion's hands. I thought that we were heading in that direction, which is why I was entirely open with Wayne about everything addressed in the Part I. Had you stayed out if it, we'd all know a lot more about Merion than we do right now. Merion would has well. But your arrogance stops things up again.
There's no need to say a thing to you on here anymore as far as I'm concerned, particularly about golf architecture but if you feel the need to call me a scumbag on here including underlining it and as long as you continue to try to mock me and my relationship with Merion, Myopia and the USGA Architecture Archive because I'm part of them, then it's pretty safe to say you'll hear from me. At least I'm involved with them and other clubs which is more than can be said for you and MacWood.
I don't enjoy calling you a scumbag or insulting you online, but I am in sort of a tough spot. Through my research into Merion and through my dealings with you offline and on, I
know about which I speak. I know what you knew, and I know what you said. I also know what you have repeatedly lied to me and MacWood off the site about a number of things, including representations made by Merion, the USGA, and various specific officials at both. And I know some of the things that you have done to those who were supposed to be your friends, most of which I have kept off here.
Given what I know, I am convinced that I never will have anything to do with you, because you are entirely dishonest and untrustworthy and have little or nothing of substance to offer, at least when it comes to the history of gca.com. The problem is, you insert yourself into everything, and it becomes impossible to pursue the subject without you getting in the way. You are entirely a disruptive force when it comes to others researching and writing about golf course architecture. I have tried to insult you and shame you and expose you into backing off. But apparently you have no shame.
Do the right thing for once in your life. Tom. Back off. Quit attacking MacWood. Let him have some breathing room so he can accomplish something from which we will all benefit. You owe it to all who have stood by you all these years, because the more MacWood is allowed to do, the more they will learn. If not, what you gonna do?
I wish your supposed friends would explain some of this to you. They see it too, but they are apparently afraid to tell you. Apparntly no one is willing to take the chance you will turn on them and try to ruin them like you have tried to to MacWood.