[TEPaul]

"You did? I don't think you addressed his questions at all."


Tom MacWood:

Technically that may be true but the reason is I don't think any of them are meaningfully inaccurate which was the question Jim Sullivan asked. I think we are waiting for you to explain to us why you think they are meaningfully inaccurate since you are the one who claimed that, not me.  

Don't worry, I don't really expect you to do that---you never have and I doubt you could. I'm quite sure this will not be the time when you'll start.

The way you and Moriarty deflect these subjects and issues and questions and posts of others on here really has gotten funny. And I must say that is not exactly something I rue anymore. What is that they say happens if you give someone enough rope?

You know, instead of just beating around the bush on here endlessly as you do so often and are on this thread, you could always just answer Sullivan's question about why those statements are meaningfully inaccurate because apparently you're the only one who thinks they are.

[Kirk Gill]

[Note, I just checked in on that other thread, and realized that bringing back this thread was just for illustrative purposes. Sorry about that.]


Ok, I'll bite. Tom M, because you're dismissing Tolhurst as laughably inaccurate, I'm going to assume that you've done research that indicates that he is incorrect. I haven't done that research, so I have some questions.

First underlined phrase: "In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket club formed the Merion Cricket GC Association."

• Is it the year that is inaccurate?
• Were the folks behind the creation of a golf association NOT golfers?
• Were they not members of the Merion Cricket Club?
• Did they not form an association?
• Is the listed name of the Association somehow incorrect?

etc. etc. I guess what I'm asking, if this is a topic for general discussion, is for you to speak to the inaccuracies themselves and detail why you believe them to be inaccurate. I'd also be interested in your take on WHY you believe that Tolhurst included a lot of details that were inaccurate.
In a larger sense, I'm also interested in your point of view. It seems as if many of your posts have to do with "exposing" historical inaccuracies in the accounts of others, as if there's been some kind of cover-up going on. Do you believe that to be true? Are you on a search for the truth, or just popping balloons?

[Jeff_Brauer]

A classic case......

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey, Sir:

If you cut and paste your above post onto the just created thread "A counterpoint to "The Missing Faces of Merion" believe me I will understand; Who really knows but I expect most everyone will respond with something like your dead horse post above but Moriarty kept asking for a counterpoint on here from me to his essay and so for the good of this site and to try to resolve this constant bickering between Moriarty and MacWood and some of the rest of us on here I thought it best to accommodate his request.

[DMoriarty]

I see we are doing the dual thread thing again.  Brother. 


Here is my post from over there.

Jim,

Again, I wouldn’t want to give anyone the mistaken impression that those three sentences were the only false or misleading information in the first two paragraphs of that section of the Merion book.  The complete paragraphs are as follows:

In 1909, the golfers of the Merion Cricket club formed the Merion Cricket GC Association to examine the problem presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it had made there course obsolete. The moving spirits of this organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lelsey, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh.

They explored the possibility of acquiring land around the old course so that it could be lengthened. However, no such land was available.  They eventually settles on a 120-acre tract, located a little south of the Phila and Western Railroad tracks on both sides of Ardmore Avenue. The golf association bought the property and leased it back to the Cricket Club. Much of the land had been part of a William Penn grant. Since 1744, it had belonged to the Johnson family. Originally a farm, the place was now neglected. On the property stood a stone farmhouse, built in 1824, and large bank barn.

I won’t deal with every inaccuracy.  That would take far too long.  But I will hit a few of what seem to be the major points.

1.   These two paragraphs try to establish that Merion moved because the Haskell ball rendered their old course too short and thus “obsolete.”  If this isn’t meaningfully inaccurate I don’t know what is.  Multiple sources from the Board on down establish that the reason Merion moved was financial.   Merion didn’t own their previous course and wanted a stable and permanent home for golf, but Merion wouldn’t pay the asking price for the leased land on which part of their course sat .  Once that legend is rendered “obsolete” then some of the rest falls as well, like the tidbit about trying to buy adjacent land to lengthen the course, and the bit about the land not being available, and of course the following . . .

2.   The book claims that MCCGA was formed in 1909 to examine the problem created by the Haskell ball.  Again, meaningfully inaccurate, at least in this context.  In fact, MCCGA had existed since the early days on the old course, and was the internal organization of all the golfers at Merion Cricket Club, and it eventually became Merion Golf Club.

3.   The book indicates that Hugh and Alan Wilson were among “the moving spirits” in the organization  set up to deal with the Haskell ball and the move.  Again, meaningfully inaccurate.  There are no facts indicating that either one was at all involved in the search for the negotiations with the old landowner or the search and purchase of the new club.

4.   The book grossly oversimplifies the purchase itself, and in the process leaves out or gets wrong a series of small details about the purchase and the various parcels involved.   Whether they are meaningful probably depend upon the reader, but they are certainly inaccurate.

Like I said, I am not going to bother to cover all the mistakes, omissions, etc.  But that is a heck of a lot wrong in just two short paragraphs.    And these are minor compared to the real errors to come.  

Incredibly, TEPaul concludes that the book is not “meaningfully inaccurate.”   Huh?    If you take out every sentence with inaccuracies in these paragraphs you are left with nothing but the bit about the William Penn grant! (Who knows?  I haven’t bothered to research that claim.)   How much more could they have gotten wrong before it was meaningfully inaccurate?

Going through line by line would be a farce.    TEPaul will continue to deny that anything is wrong, and it will be just a bunch of rehashing for me.  

It must be obvious by now that these guys have nothing meaningful, novel, or even meaningfully accurate about the history of Merion.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul, my good sir,

I am chagrined that you take offense at my not so subtle attempt at humor to defuse what surely would become a trite and contentious situation if this thread continues. It is not aimed at you one whit, my good man.

In my humble and not so learned opinion, the points made in "Missing Faces" have been adequately refuted, as I have admonished elsewhere.  And as you have suggested elsewhere, inasmuch as David knows he wrote the piece without using the single most first person accounts (i.e. Merion records), presented it as an unfinished first draft, and himself highlights all the "probably's" "might have beens" etc., I feel no one should have any formal obligation to refute it at all, much less in a point by point manner.

I will agree with David that the venom spewed regarding that piece far outweighs its importance, and he is a victim in that.  But, I believe that previous threads have vetted his work quite well enough and while it made a few points, and was the driving force in having you and Wayne (and others) dig out even more documents, I believe based on my readings of all of that, that the case is, in effect, closed.  

At the very least, the preponderance of facts brought to light suggest that Wilson should get the most credit for his years of work on Merion, over David's opinion that CBM's three days was the key to the whole deal.  I suppose it may be a legitimate opinion, but no matter how great CBM was (and he was) three days shouldn't trump several years of work, at least in my humble opinion.

And, as I have oft stated, in the end, it is really Merion's perrogative to credit whoever they choose, and not outsiders.  While that could be a point of contention if Merion speciously gave credit to, say Old Tom Morris, the facts surrounding Merion's creation are not that dramtically off base from their long held view of crediting Wilson and the Committee.  

And, Tom MacWood posts unsubstantiated "errors in the club history" which I find to be mere errors of summation and editing (if that) but demands you prove his assertions false.  Again, no need for that under any rational protocol of debate in social circles of good standing, my good man.

Tally ho!

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

 I have insomnia, and thank you very much for helping with that.

I have read your post, and while you do make some accurate points, I fail to see the big whup.  Like another LA lawyer Johnny Cocharan, you take insignifigant points and declare "something is terribly wrong."  IMHO, it isn't.  That history was written in summary form, with a general interest audience in mind.

I do from memory, recall that the leased land was a problem, and they wanted to own the course.  But it was also a cramped course.

It is true that they messed up the Wilson to Europe time line and the fact that he really didn't get involved until later in the process, after the land purchase.  And yes, the whole purchase process is simplified.  It was never intended to cover all the minute details of the land purchase, but that doesn't make it grossly inaccurate.

Nor does it provide any evidence that CBM or HH Barker designed Merion East, but that is the leap of faith you have made repeatedly.   Your logic just doesn't fly. What is the old lawyers saying?  When the facts are on your side, pound the facts...when the law is on your side, pound the law....and when niether is on your side, pound your fist!  I think your fist would be hurting by now......although I think your last post is another good example of facts and analysis being two completely different things. You are both so right and so wrong all in one post!  Your facts are mostly right, but your analysis of what those generalizations and few mis steps mean as far as the creation of Merion East are just way, way wrong.

Will not get sucked in....Will not get sucked in.....will not get sucked in.......(you guys are like big jet engines, you know!)

Good evening. I hope to meet you and discuss other matters later this month when I will be in LA. I look forward to it!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff.

Jim asked for an explanation of what was wrong with three partial sentences from the first two paragraphs of a section of Tolhurst's book.    I put the sentences back in context and told him and everyone else some of what is wrong in those two paragraphs.

Your claim that I was trying to do all this other stuff is inaccurate.   I was answering his question as best I could.  I was pointing out material inaccuracies, as asked.   The stuff Tolhurst covered may not be a "big whup" to you, but these were the main points he was trying to make in those paragraphs.  Yet they are not supported by the facts.   That makes them meaningfully incorrect.  

Your facts are mostly right, but your analysis of what those generalizations and few mis steps mean as far as the creation of Merion East are just way, way wrong.

First, I think my facts are correct, not mostly correct.  Please let me know which ones are not and I will check them.

Second, and more importantly, I didn't make any of the generalizations you attribute to me.  

Third, the only thing "way, way wrong" here is the way you twisted my post to try and make your point.

It seems you have a "who cares?" mentality toward this stuff.    That is fine, but if we do that in the context of the inaccuracies of Tolhurst, then we are saying "who cares" to the entire history of how the course came into being.   Because there really isn't that much accurate in there. 

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey, Sir:

I am chagrined that you are chagrined, and I am more chagrined that you have apparently thought I took offense at your post of nine dead horses in three horizontal columns being beaten. Nothing of the kind, my good man; I think Post #27 is delicious and I think your Posts #30 and #31 are even more delicious or deliciouser still (depending on what part of the country one comes from and its regional lexicon). They are all every bit as lip-smackingly delicious as a sweet apple tart and made from South Jersey apples not those of the more sour (or is it sourer?) kind one finds in William Penn land grant areas.

You are also right on the Filthy Lucre (money, that is, My Good Sir) with your analogous analysis of David Moriarty's technique and MO on here-----eg "Pound one's fist to make one's point" indeed, and your analogy to Johnny Cochrane's OJ Simpson courtroom tactic is particularly fine---ie "If the glove don't fit you must acquit!" a lovely deceptive tactic when faced with defending an obvious murderer try every trick you can think of to put such as the LAPD on trial and not the defendant.

You have happened upon a most important factor in this entire Merion imbroglio on here, Mr Jeffrey, and I will have more to say to you on that factor (or is it facet or faucet or perhaps even spigot or filadelphia fire hydrant?) later today, perhaps even immediately following mid-morning tea.

And please do not refer to your opinions as humble---YOU are a man of immense intellectual stature and worth and reputation, particularly when you don your Ross Red Tartan Presidential jacket and strutt into the arena of architectural debate and dialetic.

[TEPaul]

"Your claim that I was trying to do all this other stuff is inaccurate.   I was answering his question as best I could."



Mr Jeffery, Sir:

The item quoted above seems to be particularly central to the furtherance of this discussion and specific thread. As such, it may require at least ten more pages to get to a consensus definition and explanation of what your claim was. Do you suppose your claim that Moriarty was 'trying to do all this other stuff' is "mildly inaccurate," "mediumly inaccurate," "maximumally inaccurate," "mostly inaccurate," or actually "meaningfully inaccurate?" or perhaps some important combination of the foregoing? Or should we consider that it was "probably inaccurate," "likely inaccurate," or even "presumably inaccurate?" And following a comprehensive analysis of those degrees of the concept and word "inaccurate," I believe the same over-all test should be applied to the concept and word "correct."

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

This is why so many get so pissed at you...

My post told you EXACTLY which points I thought were wrong.  You ask me as if you can't read.

The reason you make all those claims in NOT because someone asked you to review a few lines.  It goes back to all the animosity of the previous threads and you defending your IMO piece.

Your tactics ARE akin to the OJ trial - there are a bazillion pieces of DNA evidence to "convict your client" (ie the IMO piece) and yet you keep hammering that "if it doesn't fit, you must aquit" because a shriveled up glove doesn't fit a guy who has gained 20 lbs since the murder.   I wonder which dozen dumb as stump jurors you are trying to convince?

Its no big whup to me that a 55 years later club history makes some generalizations.  It wasn't meant as an in depth piece, just like most club histories, so holding that up as the shriveled glove is just wrong.  But, I think I have a pretty good idea of why it is such a big whup to you to continue using deflective courtroom tactics to keep an argument going for no good reason - in essence you are desparatly trying to save your IMO piece from a date with the electric chair!

[TEPaul]

"David,

I have insomnia,..."



Mr. Jeffrey, did not your father or even your mother ever tell you that is what one is very likely (or is it probably or persumably?) a condition or disease one contracts when one lays down with Northern Italian or even Southern Spanish women of questionable repute?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer


I have no idea what you are talking about.  

I answered a question.   As far as I can tell, your responses don't seem to have much of anything to do with the question or answer.

Instead you go into some bit about CBM and Barker, and about the timing of the Wilson trip, even OJ, but these have nothing to do with the first two paragraphs of that section of the book!    Therefore my answer had nothing to do with these either.

Not sure what you are reading Jeff, but it doesn't seem like either Jim's question or my answer.

If trying to stick to the point at hand is what causes you to get pissed at me, then so be it.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer:

I believe you have hit on something today about these Merion debates and threads that really is important. I think it is important because it goes directly to the technique and logic that both David Moriarty and Tom MacWood have both used in these debates and for years now. Perhaps few have ever recognized it but we certainly have and it appears you have now too. The following may help explain it to anyone else on here that’s still interested in this subject and issue. I would address this also to Cirba, Sully, Kirk Gill, Moriarty and MacWood as well as you since you all seem to be the only one’s left posting and interested in this subject



You, Jeffrey said the following to Moriarty today”


“David,

 I have insomnia, and thank you very much for helping with that.

I have read your post, and while you do make some accurate points, I fail to see the big whup.  Like another LA lawyer Johnny Cocharan, you take insignifigant points and declare "something is terribly wrong."  IMHO, it isn't.  That history was written in summary form, with a general interest audience in mind.”



And you said the following to MacWood today:



“And, Tom MacWood posts unsubstantiated "errors in the club history" which I find to be mere errors of summation and editing (if that) but demands you prove his assertions false.”




David Moriarty responded today to your posts quoted above:




“Jeff.

Jim asked for an explanation of what was wrong with three partial sentences from the first two paragraphs of a section of Tolhurst's book.    I put the sentences back in context and told him and everyone else some of what is wrong in those two paragraphs.

Your claim that I was trying to do all this other stuff is inaccurate.   I was answering his question as best I could.  I was pointing out material inaccuracies, as asked.   The stuff Tolhurst covered may not be a "big whup" to you, but these were the main points he was trying to make in those paragraphs.  Yet they are not supported by the facts.   That makes them meaningfully incorrect.”







It seems what you have hit upon, Mr. Jeffrey, Sir, which is what we have always known and sometimes pointed out in the past, is that both MacWood and Moriarty are either CONFUSING or simply TRANSFERING the things that Tolhurst did not say about the reasons for a move to Ardmore as MEANING that the things he DID SAY (about it) ARE MEANINGFULLY INACCURATE. THEY AREN’T AND THE MCC RECORDS PROVE IT.  

[DMoriarty]

I am still trying to make sense of the comments by Jeff and TEPaul which attempt to dismiss the many errors in the first two paragraphs of Tolhurst quoted above, apparently because they aren't "meaningful."   As far as I can tell, the message is . . .

If it is inaccurate, then it must not be meaningful . . .

But as my essay details, almost all of Tolhurst on the creation of Merion East is inaccurate.   So by their logic then almost nothing in Tolhurst about the creation of Merion East is meaningful.  

In other words, they defend Tolhurst by completely denying the relevance of his entire description of the creation of Merion East!  

This leads me to wonder,  just what point are they trying to make again?  

[JESII]

David,

I just answered you on the TEP thread.

[TEPaul]

"I am still trying to make sense of the comments by Jeff and TEPaul which attempt to dismiss the many errors in the first two paragraphs of Tolhurst quoted above, apparently because they aren't "meaningful."   As far as I can tell, the message is . . .

If it is inaccurate, then it must not be meaningful . . .

But as my essay details, almost all of Tolhurst on the creation of Merion East is inaccurate.   So by their logic then almost nothing in Tolhurst about the creation of Merion East is meaningful.  

In other words, they defend Tolhurst by completely denying the relevance of his entire description of the creation of Merion East!  

This leads me to wonder,  just what point are they trying to make again?"  
 
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:07:24 PM by DMoriarty »  






THAT post is just about totally insane!! It is the biggest bunch of dialetic gobbledy-gook I have ever read! David Moriarty EVEN I'M beginning to get worried about your mental state now.

If there is anyone left on here who could explain ANY of that post to me I would just love it if you would. How about you Sully, as it appears he was talking to you on that post?

David Moriarty, Jeff and I are not trying to tell you if those first few statements Sully asked about from Tolhurst are INACCURATE then they must NOT BE MEANINGFUL. I've told you a number of times and I am telling you again those first few statements by Tolhurst Sully asked about have NO inaccuracies and NO errors in them. They are all TRUE and factually supportable from the 1909 and some of the early 1910 MCC meeting minutes.
 

[DMoriarty]

I call bullshit.   Come up with these records or quit pretending they establish everything you can't.

[TEPaul]

"I call bullshit.   Come up with these records or quit pretending they establish everything you can't."



Go ahead and call bullshit and go ahead and demand that we send all the research material to you. It sure isn't the first time you've done both on here. This is about the twentieth time you've been told how the process works, by both us and by those clubs.

Now just calm down and quit acting like some kind of hysterical little cry-baby on here that thinks everyone is against him or out to criticize him or destroy his reputation for some reason. No one is. Just do what you're supposed to do if you want to research ALL of Merion GC's and MCC's records. Do what you should've done in the first place BEFORE you researched and wrote that essay. Do what we had to do, try to establish a working research relationship with them first. That's what everyone has to do, and you're no exception, and either is MacWood, even though you both sure have acted like you are for a real long time on this website.


GOLFCLUBATLASERS:

In my opinion, this guy has lost it; I really don't know what he thinks he's up to now but after this post I'm going to try real hard to just not respond to him anymore. The same should probably go for me with MacWood on this subject too.

But if any of the rest of you have any more interests or questions about the architectural history of Merion and its details you sure know where to find me.

Thanks all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have an hour break, and it may be just enough time to tell you why you piss me off so much, in firm, yet friendly tones.  You have no control over the first three reasons:

1. You're a lawyer, lawyers (even innactive ones) piss me off.
2. Brauer is from Venus, Moriarity is from Mars.  Our logic processes are that different.
3. We both have egos, but only YOURS pisses me off.  Such is life!

More specifically, a few phrases from your last posts get me:

4. Your multiple double negatives in post 39 suggest deception and deflection as do much of your posts.  Our point was made and made simply: Tolhurst is a second hand source, not written (oddly enough) as a scholarly document, but more as a fluff piece for a general audience.  No one but your expects its summaries to be perfect.  No one but you would use a second hand source to build a historical argument.  Thus, the OJ comparison is apt.

5.  This phrase sums up my arguments against you from #37:
"I put the sentences back in context and told him and everyone else some of what is wrong"

Why does that piss me off?  Your presumption in your writing is that ONLY you can tell us the proper context.  I disagree and to use your phrase, call BS.

6. You argue that all Merion history is incorrect because Tollhurst  is incorrect, and demand we accept that.  On the other hand, you admit to mistakes in your IMO piece, there have been mistakes found in your IMO piece, and yet you DEMAND we accept it, and that those flaws do not damage it whatsoever.  If Tollhurst, with access to records 55 years later can't be trusted, why should Moriarity, without original records be trusted exactly 100 years later? That pisses me off.  Which is it?

7.  You say those Tollhurst inaccuracies (in your opinion) are testimony to the fact that Merion is covering up the truth and demand we accept that.  But despite your IMO inaccuracies, we are to blindly accept that your motives are purely history driven, and clean as the driven snow?  Again, how do we believe one and not the other?

8. Speaking of the Tollhurst supposed inaccuracies, what kind of moron can't see that there may have been many reasons for the move?  Lets see, their are about a half dozen mentions in the record of the reason for the move....the financial guys mention the financial reasons (it seems to have been common for early clubs to lease land. Ross and others mention this situation) and the golf guys mention golf reasons.  Well, duh!    So why do you INSIST we put it in your context of selectivey pursing half the evidence, analyzing it your way, and come to your conclusions, when reasonable and balanced people WOULD NOT?  That pisses people off, I don't care who you are....

So which is it, oh egotistical one?  Let me put it in context for you - I go with Tollhurst.  Moreover, I go with the original records and accept there are some discrepancies that will never be explained, rather than pass up the Bazillion pieces of DNA that should have convicted OJ in favor of hammering on a glove that didn't fit (at least with OJ's acting skills helping it along)  Johnny had a very compelling reason to turn trivia into the centerpiece of the OJ defense.  I wonder what your compelling reason is for using the same logic?

David, I have heard some wonderful things about you and mean no real disrespect.  But for the life of me, in the context of gca.com, I feel like you just like to argue for arguments sake, which is very frustrating for the rest of us.  We all like to roughhouse until someone gets hurt and goes home crying.  This is all just a boil over of a long held personal dispute with TePaul, etc. and my original dead horse post was an attempt to diffuse it.

I realize this won't end the argument, and just further it, so I will sign off now and give you a call when I get to So Cal Aug 18-20.  See you then, I hope.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

If you have proof of multiple reasons for the move, then let's see it.  Otherwise, I fail to see your point.  

______________________________

Jeff Brauer.

I hope you didn't waste your hour off on that.   You put so much spin on everything I write I feel like you must be writing to someone else.  I agree with you that I must really piss you off.  A few things that will no doubt piss you off even more . . . .  
-- Putting the snippets in context meant nothing more than putting them back into the paragraphs from which they came.  
-- I didn't argue that all Merion history is incorrect because Tolhurst is incorrect.   I was addressing a specific question about the problems in Tolhurst.   Why you won't accept that this is all I was doing is beyond me.
-- I don't know whether Merion is covering up the truth or not.  But I know that Wayne and TEPaul are covering up the truth, and that they have been doing it for years.
-- You'll have to remind me of the inaccuracies of in my essay.  I have no idea to what you refer.
-- Nice use of the word "moron."   Good to see you keeping everything above the waist.  
-- Merion's board describes ONE REASON for the move.  As does Lesley.   As does Wilson.  (Wilson matters less in this context because unlike the board and Lesley, he wasn't even involved at this point.)
--  If you want to speculate that they were wrong, or being evasive, or intentionally leaving stuff out, then that is up to you, but I'll stick to the known facts AND THE BEST, MOST RELIABLE SOURCES.
-- You are going with the historical record? My points above are based on the three best sources.  On what exactly are you basing your claim?  Besides Tolhurst?  

If you want to take Toulmin's word over these guys, then go for it.  But I don't think Toulmin was there.

Like I said to TEPaul, if there are facts which contradict what I have written, let's see them.  Otherwise what is your point, aside from that you really don't like me?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

First, I think I will like you, if we can keep "bad gca.com David" in a bag somewhere.

But seriously, where I come from, you would be called someone who can't see the forest for the trees.  It is true that all of us have different personality strengths, which sometime double as weaknesses.  Specifically, many times, those who think in small detail have trouble seeing the big picture.

You have listed or responded to many minute little factoids.  Each seems clearly right or wrong to you, for what I view as inconsistent logic, but that is another story.

I am just looking at the bigger picture and for the life of me, can't see how any of your now hundreds of arguments change the basic premise of this multi thread pissing match - that your IMO piece is somehow more accurate in its basic premise because of all the little details you find wrong in a club history piece.

They could have copied the text to Alice in Wonderland in Tollhurst's history, and it wouldn't change the facts that CBM put in three days of time at Merion, and Wilson put in closer to three years and deserves the credit far more than old CB.

You say you are simply responding to a recent post, but I think it has to all go deeper and further back than that.

You can post another 1000 details, but none so far has come close to proving your main point, because there is NO logical connection to be made.  As a result, it appears you are arguing small details endlessly in an effort to distract from the real story, and real history of Merion. I know you don't see it that way, but then again, I would expect someone focused on narrow things to have trouble seeing it other ways.

That, to me, is the big picture.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Your #44 and #46 are very good, very well thought out and well said. With his #45 he pretty much just confirmed what you said about him in your #44 and again in your #46. Before the last 24 to 36 hours I thought the guy just sort of enjoyed the art of arguing or dialetic and particularly with people he might feel sort of insecure about but in the last day or so it's got to be more than that like real myopia, fixation, stubborness, blinders, insecurities or all of the foregoing wrapped up together.

I mean can you imagine someone who actually thinks he's some kind of historian not even understanding that people like the men of Merion while considering a move or a re-lease might've said something different or something more in 1909 than they did in 1910? And not even not understanding that but actually thinking and trying to make the argument it's meaningfully inaccurate historically if they said something more or something different in 1909 than they did in 1910?

That is pretty wild for sure. I never thought his analytic logic was much good anyway but in the last 24 to 36 hours his posts show a very definite turn for the worse.

Anyway, Merion is still there just as good as ever and like they pretty much always have, they realize that primarily Hugh Wilson but with his committee were the original architects in 1911 and 1912 and Macdonald and Whigam offered them some help and advice at Ardmore one day in June, 1910, another day and a half in March 1911 at NGLA and then again for a day at Ardmore on April 6, 1911; that was basically it and none of it had anything to do really with when Hugh Wilson went abroad. The only time any of that mattered was when some mistaken story got started about 60 years after the fact.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

You make an interesting point about the differences in 1910 vs 1909.  I have read and postulated that we all have a weakness in understanding the multi year time frames, and evolving story lines of times long past.  For example, we think of "World War II" as a single event now because of its label.  Those who lived through it knew it took 7-9 years (starting with Asian conflicts as early as 1936, not to mention the Nazi lead up which extends the back story further)

The label "World War II" makes it seem as it took an hour like "dinner last Tuesday."  The prevalance of one hour TV shows heightens this weakness in human perception in general, and in my probably uninformed opinion, many or our historical analysis here, including David's.

Re: this drivel, it seems incomprehensible to me that the idea of the courses being too short was NEVER brought up in the world according to David, even if some documents do not mention it.  Hell, Francis mentions it in his 1950 US Open reminiscence and he was there.  Somehow, DM keeps telling us there is NO mention of it because of a document dated XX- XXX- 1910. 

Yes, we both agree that (in an odd twist, to be sure) that club minutes may trump secondary sources, and would have to agree that financial reasons might have been the official ones.  But, there are always back stories and nuance and I don't feel David can or will grasp those, either over time, or in a list of priorities A, B, and C of why moving was desireble.  Even if A was to own their own land, and B was to get a bigger course (things never change, do they?) there could be reasons that no one on that board would put in minutes.  I can speculate (based on old threads and documents that suggest as much) a few:

There was a chance for someone to move the club closer to his home
There was a chance for someone to make some money on the land swap!

But somehow, David has to boil a complex transaction down to one little point, and keep hammering away on it, doesn't he?  And why?  Do any of these change the basic fact that Wilson ended up designing Merion?

NO.  So what are we arguing about? It is personal, no doubt.  These discussions have nothing to do with furthering history, gca or anything.  They weren't started as anything other than another vehicle to chastise you (and as you know, DM might have some good reasons to, but its still in poor taste, but he is not the only one guilty, either) or in the case of TMac posting up this old Tollhurst thread, to tweak you.

I may be way off in this.  I am sure David will tell me I am.  Here is the funny thing - I kind of like him more now, even while disagreeing with his current contentions. In the end, even if we disagree on the meaning of Merion's history, which has taken on way too much importance for all of us, it seems we should have a basis for friendship because of our mutual interest in gca and gca.com, no?

[DMoriarty]

Hey Jeff.   I don't know how many other ways to say it.   I WAS ANSWERING JIM'S QUESTIONS.   That you can come to all these strange conclusions about all these big picture issues means your reasoning powers and abilities must go well beyond mine. Because I don't know what the hell you are talking about.  

Do you think it at all possible that you are reading things into my answers that are not there?   Again, are there any FACTS that contradict anything I have said about these paragraphs of Tolhurst?     Because as much as you would like to make this something else, it is about nothing more than my honest attempt to answer JIM SULLIVAN's QUESTIONS.

And Jeff, you aren't second guessing me by throwing out these other reasons.   YOU ARE SECOND GUESSING MERION.   Merion decided that the reason they needed to move was because they were unable to afford the land on which the golf course sat.    From Merion's Board in their 1910 report to their Members:

“It was impossible to secure the present course, as the price at which it could be acquired, was more than the Club was able to pay.”

Robert Lesley and even Hugh Wilson confirm this.

So if anyone was "boiling a complex issue down into one single point" it was Merion.   Were they lying?   Oversimplifying?  Trying to Dupe the Membership?  

Who are you guys to attribute multiple reasons for the move when Merion itself boiled down whatever reasons there may have been into one single point:   Merion was unable to pay the asking price.

It just blows me away that you guys will ignore the words of those who actually made the decision to move!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()