[JESII]

Tom,

Is there anything in your documentation to prove without question that the many plans Wilson and his crew developed were not based on very specific guidance from CBM? In other words, couldn't CBM have suggested the routing in June 1910...at least the corridors... as well as a handful of specific holes (like the current #3...) that would get Wilson about 80% of the way to the product that resulted in April 1911?

[DMoriarty]

David,

You may have missed it a few pages ago, but I think Joe's sentiment here is wise and worth considering.

David,

Can we just let it be that you don't trust them, without it having to be a part of every post? I understand, and have understood for a long, long time that you don't trust them.

There's 1500 or so participants here. Most have a reasonable sense of memory and don't need the constant reminder. And, before any of the other combatants join in resounding agreement, we know how you feel as well. We've heard it. For 100 pages now.

Thanks for your understanding.

Joe

Trust them?  If anyone trusts them at this point I would be very surprised.  I just want a clear record of what happened, lest anyone erroneously believes a word TEPaul types.   But perhaps you are correct.  Why would anyone believe anything he types at this point?   

Still though, to be safe, I will occasionally set the record straight when he goes off on these tangents about my essay, about the evidence, about his past misrepresentations, etc.   If TEPaul doesn't like it then he ought to stop misrepresenting this stuff.

[JESII]

I'm not worried about Tom liking it or not...


If there is a ocnversation to move, let's do it, otherwise let's reconvene when we have something to discuss...

[DMoriarty]

Sounds good to me.

[TEPaul]

"Jim,  I think I have only had a few posts as of late, and they haven't helped move the conversation forward at all.   But when TEPaul misrepresents my essay, or misrepresents my motives, or misrepresents my research, or misrepresents his behavior, then I will occasionally set the record straight."



Sully:

It's basically as simple as pie. His essay says a couple of times that Hugh Wilson and his committee only CONSTRUCTED Merion East to someone else's routing and design plan.

There is nothing in those remarks and conclusions that are hard to understand at all.

Since the essay, we have produced Wilson's own report that explains how they created numerous plans in the months before the course was built.

This isn't rocket science and I'm not misrepresenting anything about the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion". That's what it says a couple of times; read it yourself, and if you can't find where it says Wilson and Committee only BUILT or Constructed the course to someone else's plan I'll find those parts for you in his essay and quote them on here.

There is no misrepresentation at all of his essay on my part----that is what it says and that is patently false and we produced Wilson's own report to prove very clearly why it's false.

What more are you looking for? What more could any competent and credible researcher be looking for?  




Is there anything I just said there Sully that you think is untrue or inaccurate somehow? If so what is it?



But if you don't care what I think or know or like or don't like or say about Merion's history and that essay's revision of it and you just want to have a conversation about any of this with Moriarty, then by all means be my guest! The idea of you and others on here wandering around in another discussional wilderness perhaps endlessly is actually both appealing and amusing to contemplate!  


And of course that sounds good to the essayist as he's never really challenged. Just loft a bunch of soft-ball questions at him; he actually appears to be able to handle those with some modicum of logic. Well, let me amend that; even that's not possible anymore!

The way that Wilson report was dealt with on here by those two Wilson and Committee antagonist is actually about the funniest thing I have ever seen on a thread on here that purports to look for the truth on anything.

THEY USED "we" and "they" in the SAME REPORT???

Oh MY GOD, your Honor, THAT makes absolutely no sense at all----THROW THE WHOLE thing out!  Totally INADMISSABLE as EVIDENCE!!

And even if it DOES make sense, your HONOR, the damn defense counsels have DOCTORED and ALTERED the EVIDENCE!!

YOUR HONOR, did you say Wayne Morrison is actually the architectural historian of MERION??? That's outrageous YOUR HONOR, I demand he be disbarred and dismissed from this courtroom immediately! That man is nothing more than a "legend" and "myth" perpetuator!! HE will just not do, Your Honor------WE WANT THE TRUTH!!!!

 

[JESII]

Tom,

When I said I didn't care if you liked it or not, what do you think I was referring to?



As to a potential "discussional wilderness" I think the total number of words I've put on this thread is about 1% of your own.



The Wilson report probably is very enlightening, but I doubt it lays out each step they took. You and I have spoken about this numerous times and we agree that the information currently available supports Wilson doing the lion share of the work with some help from M&W.

I think it is important to remember that this essay was posted in an "In My Opinion" section of a Golf Architecture website and could easily be read as an opinion. David's opinion is very strong, and mostly counter to my own understanding of the events, but not something that needs to be treated as re-writing history.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
When I said I didn't care if you liked it or not, what do you think I was referring to?"


Sully:

If I only get one guess I would have to say Chubby Checker and The Twist. I believe the exact meaning of both was danged near parsed to death on page #94.

[Joe Hancock]

To the combatants,

Please don't assume that I(or anyone else, for that matter) fall on one side of the fence or the other, or even care enough to take up a position, just because you haven't heard me disparage you publicly. I don't feel compelled to get into the negativity in a public forum, as many of the active participants of this thread have. I, like many others on here, have a few shreds of a career left in this golf course design and build business and don't care to lose all face by calling people names and questioning their integrity in public.

Just because there's only two people who are willing to say something negative about you or not trust what you write doesn't mean there isn't a whole bunch more thinking it.

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok,  can we actually discuss the evidence?

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  


"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."


Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans??


If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?

[TEPaul]

"Would anyone care to answer the questions below?"


NO!  Been there, done that, only to see the response that "we" and "they" in the Wilson report renders the report senseless!  

Oh, and of course, I was accussed of historical fraud for doctoring and altering original documents!      

So, why would I want or need to hear that again?  


BONG, BONG, BONG!!!   Because I'm a SADOMASOCHIST!!!

OK, tell me again "we" and "they" in the same report renders the report senseless and I doctored and altered original documents in my on-going conspiratorial mission to maintain the "legend" and "myth" of Hugh Wilson and hide the truth that C.B. Macdonald routed and designed Merion East!

[DMoriarty]

Ok,  let's discuss the evidence.

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  

If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?


"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."


THAT is what the minutes say according to my understanding and it's what I've probably copied here at least 5 times previously, and consistently.   It is also consistent to what I saw of the minutes in person, on two separate occassions, the second time with Joe Bausch in attendance.


Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans??

No.

1.  It was the Golf Committee report, not the Site Committee report.
2.  The snippet is just that.  We don't know what else it says, and we know that there is material missing (such as the bit about the construction company.)
3.  Different versions of this section have been given.  Most notably, TEPaul claimed that it said WE laid out many different courses . . ." When combined with  [/i]THEY went down to the National . . .[/i].  This indicates that it is NOT just Wilson's committee the report is talking about.
4.  Hugh Wilson's statement (the one we all have) indicates that the got a "good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes" at NGLA, implying that they hadn't done any laying out up to that point.
5.  WE HAVENT SEEN THE SOURCE MATERIAL SO WE CANNOT AGREE TO ANYTHING.

What don't you get?   The way it has been presented it is not only suspect, it is incomplete and ambiguous.   We are at a loggerhead until the source material is presented so that it can be properly verified and vetted.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok.

Sounds good to me.

I tried.

Have a good day.

[DMoriarty]

Also Mike,  there is a difference between planning five different layouts and laying out five different plans.   The snippet addresses the latter, but does address whose plans they were.  

[TEPaul]

"Ok.

Sounds good to me.

I tried.

Have a good day."





Me too!  



"What don't you get?   The way it has been presented it is not only suspect, it is incomplete and ambiguous.   We are at a loggerhead until the source material is presented so that it can be properly verified and vetted."


What don't you get? If you think the way we've presented it on here is suspect, incomplete and ambiguous why in the Hell don't you go try to get it yourself and present it on here? Honest to God, you really do need to address that because after the way you've treated us here on this subject why in the world would any of us have the slightest motivation to do a God-damned thing for someone like you? And I sincerely hope that Merion G.C. and MCC and any other club like them in America feels precisely the same way.

Jeeeesus, you are really something else, David Moriarty! For your next mission why don't you write a really good In My Opinion piece on the most effective ways to alienate important clubs and their members and friends? On that I have no doubt at all you will be or are a world class expert!
 

[DMoriarty]

You tried?  You told us to accept your interpretation of documents we have not seen, even though TEPaul's respresentations differ from yours, and you call this your attempt at a productive discussion?    

As I have been saying all along, it is not a discussion if one side just insists that the other side accept what they say as true, without offering facts to prove up that claim.    

Mike, I answered your question, so here are a few of mine.

Do you agree that you guys are NOT PROVING UP YOUR CLAIM?

Do you agree that you are simply asking us to take you word for what the documents say?  

If so, do you seriously think that, at this point, this is a reasonable request?

Do you have a photographic memory?    Do you remember EXACTLY what the report said, from beginning to end?   Did you transcribe the photograph of the actual report?  

If the answer to these questions is NO, then how in the heck can you be so sure of yourself as to what the document says?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not "you guys".

I'm not part of a "posse", or a "syndrome", or whatever.

I'm only quoting evidence as was presented here previously from the MCC Minutes.   If you believe that either it's incomplete, tampered with, or otherwise faulty, or more specifically, if you don't trust that what I'm provding here is based on my copiying them verbatim from initial posts here, or don't trust me when I say that the wording is consistent with what I've seen twice, then there is no point in discussing it and indeed, it's clearly time for us all to move on because as I said previously, the MCC Minutes are not mine to provide.

[DMoriarty]

1.  You ARE "you guys."  Like it or not.  You have long been parroting for Wayne and sometimes Tom.  You have been privy to a glance at the information.  YOU are insisting that we accept your interpretation of the truth.

2.  If you are only quoting what you have seen on these threads, then your repeated statements that this is exactly what it says are WORTHLESS.   You don't know exactly what it says.  

3.  I KNOW it is incomplete.   I KNOW that it has been presented inconsistently.   THESE THINGS I KNOW.

4.  HOW CAN YOU SAY THE WORDING IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN TWICE?    DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY?  DID YOU CAREFULLY TRANSCRIBE THE WORDING FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH?    

I can answer both these questions for you.   You don't have a photographic memory, and you copied the wording from the threads.   THEREFORE MIKE, YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR YOUR SUPPOSED AUTHENTICATION OF THE ACCURACY.  

Do you understand that last statement?   You have no basis for telling us what the documents actually say.  You don't have them.  You did not copy them exactly.   You are going by the same screwed up record as the rest of us.  

Do you understand that?   Because it is important.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I really don't want to argue with you.

I know what I read.

You don't accept that and that's your call.

I understand.  I just can't help you there so we are at an impasse and I'm not going to engage in just banging heads any longer.

Have a great day..

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

You know what you read?   Read where?

All along you have been writing that you copied the snippets from the posts.   Are you now saying that you copied them from somewhere else? Or are you saying that you remember exactly what they documents say, but didn't bother to copy it down until it was posted?  What are you saying?

You want to advance the discussion here is your chance.  

You do NOT KNOW exactly, word for word, what the snippets actually say, do you?

A simple question Mike, and one that might advance the conversation . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would anyone care to answer the questions below?  


"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."

Mike, my thoughts on the above statement are as follows.

I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.
I think "they" presented them to CBM.
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.

I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.

That's the way I read that passage.


Does anyone not agree that it was Hugh WIlson's committee who went "down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald..."??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "after laying out many golf courses..."... AFTER went down to NGLA??

If we're in agreement there, then someone please tell me how it was someone DIFFERENT who "on our return" rearranged the course and laid out five different plans??


If we can't even agree that this whole section of the MCC Minutes is talking about the activities of Hugh Wilson's Committee (no matter how much of their activities were influenced by M&W or not), then there really isn't much point in continuing here, is there?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

So, you agree that if that is what the MCC Minutes actually say, that it is undeniable that all three comments are talking about the same committee?

I'm not sure where you are seeing evidence of your other interpretations, but I would consider your complete agreement that the statement is coming from Hugh Wilson's committee to be a giant step forward. 

Thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

I'm not "you guys".

I'm not part of a "posse", or a "syndrome", or whatever.

I'm only quoting evidence as was presented here previously from the MCC Minutes.   If you believe that either it's incomplete, tampered with, or otherwise faulty, or more specifically, if you don't trust that what I'm provding here is based on my copiying them verbatim from initial posts here, or don't trust me when I say that the wording is consistent with what I've seen twice, then there is no point in discussing it and indeed, it's clearly time for us all to move on because as I said previously, the MCC Minutes are not mine to provide.

By extracting excerpts one can make a long statement say just about anything they desire:

"Mr. Connell states that if this property should be acquired and used as a golf course they intend that all the houses on the adjoining property shall face the course...Connell on his own account, obtained a report from HH Barker, the Garden City professional...We do not feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, however, that is was, in general terms favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon their opinion. "

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That's true.

That's why I prefaced my response to Patrick, "if that's what the MCC Minutes really say".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So, you agree that if that is what the MCC Minutes actually say, that it is undeniable that all three comments are talking about the same committee?

Mike,

That's NOT what I said.

You asked for a general opinion and I offered one in a limited context.

I did not address tangential and/or specific issues.


I'm not sure where you are seeing evidence of your other interpretations, but I would consider your complete agreement that the statement is coming from Hugh Wilson's committee to be a giant step forward.  

Mike, you're jumping to erroneous, predisposed conclusions has been part of the problem with this thread.

I don't need YOU or anyone else to tell me what I said.
I don't need YOU or anyone else to paraphrase or offer their interpretation of what I said.

In addition, you chose to IGNORE the most pertinent aspect of my statement while focusing on tangential issues I DIDN'T discuss.

Please save your spin for political issues

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

That's true.

That's why I prefaced my response to Patrick, "if that's what the MCC Minutes really say".

I guess since you refuse to answer my questions, I'll take this as a statement that you really do not know exactly what the Lesley report said.    

Given that you don't know exactly what it said, could you please stop insisting that we accept your version as fact?

You asked Patrick:

So, you agree that if that is what the MCC Minutes actually say, that it is undeniable that all three comments are talking about the same committee?

Undeniable?    Hardly.   We cannot tell who did what from the quote or that it was the same people who did it all.   We know Wilson and his committee went to NGLA from other sources, but by itself this gives no indication whatsoever.   Plus, some of the same problems exist even if this is the exact language.

1.   It is a snippet given out of context and without the context it is impossible to say anything is "indisputable."
2.  Lesley, of the Golf Committee, gave the report.   This alone makes it ambiguous without further explanation.
3.  Even as you write it, the snippet does not tell us who planned the five courses that someone laid out.   Nor does it explain how the course (singular) could be rearranged if their were five layouts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()