Desmond Tolhurst's account

[TEPaul]

"As Merion's minutes said, (his committee) would lay it out according the the plan that CBM and HJW chose and approved.    I suppose the only question left is how much or how little creative input Wilson contributed to this plan."



Well, since the committee report said that following the meeting at NGLA (early March) they (the committee) rearranged the course into five different plans (Wilson mentioned to Oakley in his March 12, 1911 letter when he mentions going to NGLA that Macdonald and Whigam were expected to return to Ardmore in a few weeks) one could logically conclude that Macdonald and Whigam were not at Ardmore working with the Wilson Committeed during those weeks so logically Wilson and his committee were the ones rearranging the course into five different plans.

And the report to the April 19, 1910 board meeting does say that of those plans if the one Macdonald and Whigam said they would approve was used it would contain that best last seven holes of any inland course in the world.

The report to the board (given by Lesley) also said that PLAN was 'submitted herewith' so one might logically conclude that PLAN was a PLAN on paper being submitted to the Board of Governors at the MCC clubhouse in Haverford where they were holding their monthly board meeting and not just a bunch of stakes that had been arranged on the ground previously at Ardmore.    

And since Francis was an engineer and surveyor and he told us in his 1950 article that he was 'added to the committee' because he could read drawings and make them and that he could run a transit, a level and a tape and that he spent many hours over a drawing board and just plain talking, one could probably logically conclude that he was the one on the committee who actually drew the five different plans, including the one that was "herewith submitted" to the April 19, 1910 Board meeting.

[TEPaul]

"CBM was the most famous golfer in the US at the time."

In 1910? He most certainly was not. Arguably Walter Travis still was!

[JESII]

Was anyone foolish enough to take the under on 50 pages?

I thought Kris Scheiner did...but I'd be speculating...

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Since you're back, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my posts #1304 & 1305.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"Ask TEP why there were two different versions."


Tom MacWood:

Ask me why there were two different versions of what?  
 
 

[DMoriarty]

As if on cue, Mike Cirba goes right ahead and posts yet another substantively different version of the minutes.

This is a joke guys.  As much as you'd like to, you just can't change the source material at your whim and to suit your needs.  It is beyond unethical to try to control the record the way you have.  

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but we are not each entitled to our own facts.  And we certainly aren't entitled to just make up the facts as we go as you have.

—--------———

Jeff I'll respond to your comments a bit later.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Please explain what "substantive differences" you see in what I shared of the minutes...I have no idea what you mean.  

[JESII]

Jim,

Since you're back, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my posts #1304 & 1305.

Thanks.

Mike,

I typed a nice response and then timed out and screwed up the cut and paste...

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Instead of just mentioning it why don't you or MacWood at least show us or tell us what you think these substantially different versions of the minutes are?

How can any of us know what either of you are talking about if you don't at least show us what it is you're talking about?

The way you two are going about this it's like you're calling people liars but you refuse to tell them what you think their lie is.  



And now MacWood has called the forty year Merion historian John Caper's integrity into question by calling him 'the posterboy of unethical archivists.' And John Capers has never even looked at GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!



THAT is definitely not going to fly!!

[JESII]

For starters...I think your position relies too heavily on the "approximate" road being simply a hypothetical road. The explanations for why MCC would commit to it are less than convincing:

1 - it matches the other one
2 - it provided more real estate frontage
3 - where else would you make it?
4 - Someone in the engineers office just picked a spot to enclose 117 acres

Each can be discussed for why they don't work, but in general the flaw in your position (from my perspective) is that they used it as a hard boundary that would need approval to breach. I don't think MCC would have agreed to that.


Now I forget how you addressed Lloyd's purchase in those two earlier posts so I'll just re-ask the question I lost...

What did Lloyd buy the 161 acres for in 1910? And do I remember a debate from a year or so ago about the minutes saying he "took title" for HDC and it was assumed to be a typo and should have read MCC?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Please explain what "substantive differences" you see in what I shared of the minutes...I have no idea what you mean.  

Of course you don't.   That is because we don't all have access to the singular source material, and because you guys can't keep track of the differences between what the minutes really say and what you want them to say.   So, sure enough, time and time again, the minutes are subtly changed to better reflect your argument, whether consciously or unconsciously, or by the power of wishful thinking.   And isn't it peculiar how the "mistakes" always fall to your advantage?

I see that TEPaul has no idea of what I mean either, and insists I tell you guys how you got it wrong.   

It is absolutely ridiculous the you two are the ones who claim to be honestly and accurately bringing forward this material, and yet the two of you never have any idea when you've screwed it up.  And you demand we who don't have the source material should correct your errors?    What a joke.   A complete farce.   

Bring forward the material for proper vetting and I'll be glad to tell you what you've gotten wrong this time. 

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'd hoped to have a discussion with you and interested parties on some of our areas of legit disagreement and obviously that can't happen here.

Let's have a beer and catch up soon.

This has gotten way too out of hand.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: MCirba on Today at 06:47:11 AM
David,

Please explain what "substantive differences" you see in what I shared of the minutes...I have no idea what you mean.  


Of course you don't.   That is because we don't all have access to the singular source material, and because you guys can't keep track of the differences between what the minutes really say and what you want them to say.   So, sure enough, time and time again, the minutes are subtly changed to better reflect your argument, whether consciously or unconsciously, or by the power of wishful thinking.   And isn't it peculiar how the "mistakes" always fall to your advantage?

I see that TEPaul has no idea of what I mean either, and insists I tell you guys how you got it wrong.  

It is absolutely ridiculous the you two are the ones who claim to be honestly and accurately bringing forward this material, and yet the two of you never have any idea when you've screwed it up.  And you demand we who don't have the source material should correct your errors?    What a joke.   A complete farce.  

Bring forward the material for proper vetting and I'll be glad to tell you what you've gotten wrong this time."






David Moriarty:

This is another good example of your fallacious logic and reasoning, and you're inclination to avoid a legitimate question.

You and MacWood have claimed that we offered substantively different versions of MCC minutes and such.

We have simply asked you to explain what our different versions are and why you think they are substantively different. If neither of you can even explain why you think our versions are substantively different from one another then how in the world can you claim they are?

When MacWood was asked the question his answer was to ask me. His answer was not to explain why he thinks our versions are substantively different. And when you were asked the same question you avoided answering it just saying we screwed it up. How did we screw it up into substantively different versions? Please tell us if in fact you know.


Show us how the different versions you say we have put on here are substantively different.

And as far as vetting original documents that really isn't a problem. Just try to make and arrangement with Merion for an appointment to meet us all in the archives of Merion. Why don't you try to coordinate it with Tom MacWood and he can apologize to 40 year Merion historian in person for what he said about him on Post #1420 today.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Those must be sound questions.  Otherwise Mike would answer them in public.   Instead you get yet another private session where another of these guys can work on you again, and surely provide you with select information to try and convince you while avoiding any alternate input here.

Mike,

That you and TPaul still have no idea of the error speaks volumes about your respective understanding of this source material.   You see it as you want to see it and your mistakes reflect that. If you were actually concerned with getting the record straight, you'd already have gone through what you posted to see where you screwed it up this time.  That is, if there even is a real record to which you can refer.  

Of course the best approach would be to  quit playing games with the source material and allow it to be verified.

[TEPaul]

And now Tom MacWood, I'd like to ask you very nicely to please delete what you said in Post #1420 and email the 40 year Merion historian again and apologize to him and to Merion for what you said about him.

Please do that for the good of this website at least. What you said on Post #1420 about a man who has dedicated over forty years to the preservation of the historic aspect of that club, who has never even looked at this website, was really impugning of his integrity and probably very close to defamation of character and actionable.

In all my years on here I have never seen anybody on this website say something like that about a person from a significant club who has never even participated on here.

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul,  if Mr. Capers is as in cahoots with you and Wayne as you have said and implied, then I'm not sure what you think MacWood should apologize for.  In fact, if the picture you have painted is accurate then it is MacWood who is owed the apology.

As for myself, I try not to take too much of what you say seriously when it comes to Merion. I've been duped by your lies about Mr. Capers and others at Merion before, and so I try to ignore you.  Maybe I am just being niave, but it seems Merion's big mistake is trusting Wayne's judgment and his willingness to act ethically, and that it is only you and Wayne who have acted unethically and in the process made a mockery of Merion's archival process and even Merion's history.