[DMoriarty]

Moriarty, I think it might be a whole lot more appropriate for Merion to tell you who's a friend of theirs rather than for some no-count piece of crap like you who they laugh at, to try tell them who embarrasses them.  

Are you going to write them the emails you threatened to on here or are you going to not dare to do that because you are the gutless nonentity you've shown yourself to be on here and you now know it, and you know we all know it?  

I'd be glad to, just as soon as you confirm your story . . .

1)  Did Merion or representatives of Merion gave you correspondence which TomM and/or I sent to Merion?
2)  Do Merion or representatives of Merion really approve of you distributing this private correspondence (and/or threatening to distribute it) on the web for the purposes of trying to embarrass us?

Simple questions, and definitely where you were going above.   I just want to confirm that you are sticking by this story before I bother anyone about it.   If you confirm the two points above, I'd be glad to take it up with Merion.   If not, then it is just more proof that you will say about anything if you think it might further your attempts to malign us.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

On #1 if you want to discuss it I suggest you see me, a representative of Merion and Jim Sullivan in person about it; that is if either of them wants to discuss it with you and me.

I asked him a question about that communication on here and if he would like to hear about it. He chose not to respond on here. In retrospect that was probably a very intelligent thing to do. But you chose to respond to me about it on here even though my post was to him and not you. In retrospect maybe you shouldn't have done that and it probably would've passed.


On #2 I suggest you speak to Merion in person about that for an answer to your question. 


After all that if you want to put your opinions of those discussions on this website then that's your choice.

[TEPaul]

As for this particular thread; it seems to have been in the back pages for over a year until it was reprised by Tom MacWood about five days ago with Post #20  I wonder why.

But in the meantime there are a few very good questions from Cirba and Sullivan involving the history of Merion in the latter half of 1910 put to Moriarty and MacWood on this thread and asked a number of times. To date I don't see that they have even tried to answer those questions directly and appropriately. Is there anyone who wonders why they don't just try to answer those questions appropriately and directly? If they did this thread might be able to conclude with some good questions asked and some good answers given.




"Quote from: MCirba on August 07, 2010, 06:21:33 AM

I believe Jim Sullivan spelled out your first three contended remarks and asked that you tell why you feel they are inaccurate.

Are you planning to respond to Jim's questions, because he seems to be the only one interested in going down this hole again?


Mike
I will address them if you'd like, but I thought TEP said he would address them. Are you giving him another pass?
 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 07:06:26 AM by Tom MacWood »"  
 

[Mike Cirba]

Trying to get this back to discussion about the origins of the golf course, and repeating myself from last night, I think these questions bear consideration and discussion;


The more I read it, the more I think Richard Francis's article from 1950 is the most valuable piece of evidence that exists, with the second piece being the related Nov 1910 Pugh and Hubbard Land Survey map.

I'll try to explain why tomorrow morning sometime, but I'll start with a few questions;

1) If a deceased legend like CB Macdonald had originally designed Merion, why wouldn't Francis even mention Macdonald in his essay about the origins of the East Course?   Francis was there through this whole period, and according to David's theory was actually working with Macdonald on the design and routing of the golf course (inexplicably, no other committee members were) sometime prior to November 15, 1910.

2) Francis tells us that at the time of his brainstorm, the land they ended up swapping back to HDC (in the form of "fine homes along Golf House Road"), did not fit in with any golf layouts (plural) under consideration.   We know after Wilson and Co. came back from NGLA they came up with "five different plans" in the time period of March/early April 1911.   We also know that Francis stated shortly after his brainstorm workmen were out blasting the top off the quarry to make way for the 16th green.   If the land plan and routing was finalized in November 1910 based on Francis's insight, then why were there still multiple plans for Macdonald to consider when he came to visit in November 1910 and why didn't construction of the course begin until April 1911?

3) Why on the November 1910 Land Plan are the 3 acres of leased land along the clubhouse not included shaded in green as "Merion Golf Course"?   If the routing was finalized at that time, isn't it more likely than not that the land would have been shaded as well?













As seen in the drawing above, notice how the land north of Ardmore Avenue (the right side of the drawing) clearly only has enough width for outgoing and returning holes.   I'm sure no one ever seriously considered more than perhaps one east/west hole at the widest part, because under no circumstances was there enough room to do otherwise, so in many ways the general routing was dictated by the property constraints.   But, to be able to go out and back effectively, and with enough width to so, you need a generally undeterred path, but that wasn't the case with the quarry (as one can see above, and below).     This is what I wrote about it last night;

Jim,

I agree...they bought the land up there for golf, but they didn't obtain it in a separate purchase or swap.   The Johnson Farm boundary that Lloyd already controlled extended all the way up beyond that Haverford College Boundary, and it was if memory serves about 105 yards wide by 265 yards long as indicated on that November 15, 1910 Land Plan, which is certainly large enough for some golf.

Recall that the curving road drawn on that map and it's sister curving road inside HDC Land were not built yet, and were simply a theoretical boundary on the only variable boundary on the property; the northwest border of the Johnson Farm adjoining other HDC holdings.

Still and all, I think they probably established some working boundaries along that line, probably just in the form of stakes, to indicate some 117 acres they had secured.   The problem is that they ended up needing 120, and I believe the reason for this was simply that they didn't at first realize how big an obstacle the quarry was going to be, and that they needed to create an alternate fairway around it, throwing off all their assumptions as far as necessary width for golf holes.

I'm speculating of course, but it seems to make sense.   Because of the quarry, the 15th hole got pushed well out beyond what they originally figured, and even the original location of the 15th tee was close to the road, just past the left side of the 14th green.   They needed to do that to accommodate the fact that the lengthy carry across the quarry on what had to be a daunting hickory-shafted hole of 430 yards was prohibitive to most members, and required the alternate.  

Note the location of the original 15th tee.



Notice what is said about the alternate route for 16.



This modern aerial shows the dimensions in that area, with today's Golf House Road seen  in blue, the proposed road from the Nov 1910 Land Plan in red, and the dimensions of the quarry and the location of the original 15th tee in yellow.   I think it's pretty obvious that that was enough room to build the second half of the 14th hole as well as the 15th in the width originally indicated if they hadn't found it probably necessary and desirable to build the alternative fairway route around the quarry on 16.




By way of comparison for average "carry distances" at the time, the 4th hole at Cobb's Creek back then was a full carry 150 yards.   That used to be such a ball-buster of a carry for most golfers that play would back up there, sometimes for hours.   In the 1920's they even considered proposing new rules, such as if you didn't make the carry you'd just drop on the other side, and another suggestion was to skip the hole entirely!

I think that pushing out of the 15th at Merion much further left than they originally thought they needed meant that they had to get about 20-30 yards wider at the bottom of the triangle, so that they could also fit the 16th tee up there comfortably.  

Of course, I think they then simply worked "puts and gets" along the length of the original proposed boundary to push other things (like the 14th green) where they wanted, but at the end of the day ended up needing three more acres than they originally secured, along with the 3 acres of rented property for the 12th green/13th hole.



This 1916 drawing shows again the width of the quarry, and how their need to work around it probably pushed the 14th and 15th holes out further.




If you see where they located their 13th hole, you can also see why there was room to the left across from the clubhouse that didn't fit in with any golf layouts.   They already had a long walk from the 13th green to 14th tee and going further left was just not desirable.   Then, the ensuing problem of having to provide a way to play AROUND the quarry.

Generally, form follows function.


I have some other comments about the Francis article that I'll hopefully get to this weekend.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

But we've been all over that very same argument and set of circumstances on that triangle on those old really long Merion threads, and still there was nothing close to a resolution.

Can you even remember now how it was first discovered that Francis probably just added to that triangle land where they needed it and took away or gave back land where they didn't need it instead of creating that entire triangle with his idea he took to Lloyd for approval in the middle of the night?

Futhermore, if Francis created that entire triangle, as Moriarty claims in his essay, that shows on that Nov 1910 map then why is that triangle close to 300 yards long on its northeast line, instead of the 190 yards he mentions in his article and why is it so wide in the last 120 yards or so on that land plan when it isn't anything like that now or when they actually built #15 and #16 and first built the road which has never changed and was built after those holes were built?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'm still thinking Sully might see the clarity of logic and sensibility here because he seems so darn rational, sensible, and even-headed about everything else!    

Tom and David wouldn't admit they were wrong with a routing map signed by Hugh Wilson.

And I think most of the rest of the folks already know the truth, but it never hurts to look at the same thing in a different way to see if it still proves out.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I've talked to Sully about this. He just doesn't think anyone would actually agree to buy a particular amount of land without first having a fairly finalized routing and design on it. That seems to be the only problem he has in trying to imagine that Francis may've had his idea in 1911 and with what it looks like now from all the additional information probably riight around late March and early April, 1911. There are also a number of other things he said in that article that would indicate that. But Moriarty did not use those parts of Francis' article; he basically only used his part about 130 by 190.

And to try to rationalize away what Francis said about those quarrymen blowing off the top of the quarry within a couple of days after his idea and the permission from Lloyd he just said that Francis must have been mistaken about that. 

He also rationalized that it couldn't have happened that fast anyway because the transfering of land via deed transfers takes longer than that. He obviously said that in his essay because at that time he was not even aware that Horatio Gates Lloyd owned that land already (mid-December 1910). The evidence of that in his essay is when he said MCC bought the land in Jan. 1911. They did not even receive it via MCCGA until July 1911.

For someone who keeps claiming everyone else is wrong but him it is undeniable now with provable facts that he really didn't get much of anything right in his essay. The whole thing is just a long series of somewhat clever but ultimately completely fallacious reasoning. And if one knows all the facts throughout that entire timespan like I do it becomes really obvious not just what actually happened but how Moriarty tried to make it look like it all happened differently.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom & Sully,

It was fairly common at that time for clubs or groups or even individuals interested in building a golf course to bring someone in to advise whether a piece of property was good enough for a golf course without providing any semblance of a routing. They might suggest a hole or two on certain pieces, but only of the most preliminary kind in advising. Tilly did it quite often and isn't that exactly what CBM did for Merion in 1910?

[TEPaul]

Philip:

I couldn't agree with you more and I think that becomes apparent to anyone who's involved in architecture or particularly projects in some way. As Kenny Venturi used to say; "You had to be there to understand." Some made fun of KennyV's somewhat inarticulate old saws but on that one he was right on the money and so are you.

For anyone to even imagine that Macdonald would or even could route and design any golf course in a day is sort of maddness in my opinion. If you read what he actually wrote in that letter he sent to the MCC Search Committee in June 1910 (a letter that Moriarty did not actually have when he wrote that essay) Macdonald told them there wasn't much he could say without a topographical survey map in front of him. And then he told them that THEIR PROBLEM was to find eighteen world-class holes on that property. He didn't say it was HIS problem he actually wrote it was THEIR PROBLEM!

But again, Moriarty did not know that when he wrote that essay. Wayne Morrison found that letter later in the archives of MCC and provided him with that information via this website. But as he always seems to do he just ignored it or tried to rationalize it away when it didn't square with what he said in his essay which he wrote with far less than complete resource material.

And now he won't even answer the simplest and most straightforward questions put to him on here by the likes of Cirba and Sully. He seems to prefer to just soldier on with posts calling me (and of Wayne Morrison) a liar and claiming I'm somehow altering original documents and manipulating a club's history. And MacWood's not much better on this thread either. It's all just deception and I think their participation over Merion always has been. If not for those two I don't think there ever would've been any problems with Merion or its threads. At least I can't recall anyone else creating any problems other than those two. And amazingly it's been going on with those two on this subject for over seven years.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I know Sully's objecyion but that is why they brought in CBM (after Connell had brought in Barker) in June 1910; to answer the question of whether a first class course could be built on the land they were considering.  I'm not sure at that point if CBM considered the Dallas Estate or just the Johnson Farm but we do know they figured on needing about 120 acres at that time.  Amazing how close that early estimate turned out to be!

Once given that green light from CBM, the next few months were spent finalizing the deal, including the Dallas Estate, so that by Nov they were ready to move forward, securing 117 from HDC with likely to also try to lease the 3 acres of railroad land near the clubhouse for their estimated 120

It was only later, after Francis, that they realized they needed 123 total to make it work.

I see CBM's role here as the wise, kindly grandpa who they went to when needing an expert outside opinion, and to make sure they were staying on the right track.

[Mike Cirba]

Phi/Tom

Our posts crossed.

Great points.

[TEPaul]

"I see CBM's role here as the wise, kindly grandpa who they went to when needing an expert outside opinion, and to make sure they were staying on the right track."


Absolutely! That too has always been part of the Merion record and history. The board actually referred to Macdonald and Whigam as "those two good and kindly gentlemen" who were excellent golfers and who offered us some help and advice in the beginning.

The board recorded that in 1910, Hugh Wilson said it in an article in 1916, Alan Wilson said the same thing in a letter to the Merion historian in 1926 and Tolhurst said it in his history book in 1989.

I realize that MacWood may've thought he had discovered something Merion was not aware of when he started that thread on here in Feb. 2003 entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?"

He didn't discover anything they didn't know about that even though I suppose I can see why he may've thought he did-----eg he had never been to Merion and he had never seen their archives. And it's pretty ironic after all this time and all this argument that he still hasn't. But would he take our word for any of it? Of course not!  

[JESII]

OK - I'm back for a little while and it seemed like there were several questions directed at my based on my thesis.

I'll try to hit them, but fire away.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

As I figured, you aren't willing to stand by your earlier posturing indicating that officials at Merion were involved in your despicable behavior.  It was just more empty rhetoric on your part.


Mike Cirba,

I hope you aren't recycling all that tired information on my account.  I read it and responded to it the first time but I have no interest in it now.   


Jim Sullivan,

No questions from me.

[JESII]

David,

I think we're further apart than you may have read into that. When Wilson uses the words "plans" and "courses" referring to the March NGLA meeting I think he was just describing different hole lengths and features within the same (or very similar) routing.


Tom P,

I would appreciate seeing CBM's letter again.

The only shred of evidence I have supporting my suggestion that CBM pointed out a general direction around the property and maybe other baseline ideas is that he recommended/endorsed the acquisition of the three acres behind the clubhouse. Lloyd and the others involved were clearly in a position to acquire just about as much land as they wanted going west, why pick out that little area if not to put a golf hole?  Also, CBM's letter about ideal hole lengths fit Merion's par 3's to a tee...which is not so easy to do.


Mike,

Your questions are about Francis and the triangle.

I think it was on the land plan because they knew they were going up there but didn't know how far. It was a soft border that could easily be moved. The goal had to be to shrink-fit the boundary to the golf course in order to maximize real estate available. At that point (11/1910) they were'nt selling any lots I don't think...




Tom - Why is my name in this post below from early today? I want no part in that side of this issue.

"David Moriarty:

On #1 if you want to discuss it I suggest you see me, a representative of Merion and Jim Sullivan in person about it; that is if either of them wants to discuss it with you and me."

[JESII]

When did construction formally begin?

[JESII]

I think they went up to NGLA in March 1911, mostly to listen, because it seems at that point they had tried "many" layouts, none of which they felt comfortable with, and CBM showed them the ideal holes abroad as well as what he had done with NGLA, and I'm betting they got some better insight and they cajoled him to come back down and look at their revised plans, which he did on April 6th, 1911, and helped them select the best one.

Mike,

I disagree with this summary of the March / April meetings, but I have to ask...How is this any different from what David has said all along?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

On the course right now...will respond later.

David,

I'm not posting for your benefit but to discuss with Jim.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"Tom - Why is my name in this post below from early today? I want no part in that side of this issue.

"David Moriarty:

On #1 if you want to discuss it I suggest you see me, a representative of Merion and Jim Sullivan in person about it; that is if either of them wants to discuss it with you and me.""



Sully:

No problem. The reason I mentioned your name in the post above is because I asked you if you would care to hear about the correspondences between MacWood and Moriarty and the Merion historians. You did not respond. Then this morning Moriarty asked me to confirm the story that I might know about them. I told him if he wanted to talk to me about something like that he would have to do it in person (as you obviously know he likes to spew all this shit on here and not offline). He responded to me about a post I made to you. So I told him if he was interested in discussing it he should do it in person with me and with you if you wanted to since I asked you, and NOT HIM, if you would care to hear about those correspondences.

Apparently Moriarty must think he has some kind of special aggreement with Merion whereby no one should talk about his correspondences with them or theirs with him. He even mentioned that if that happened it must be some kind of 'sleazy, no class thing' or some kind of "Main Line Way."

So, I just told him that yeah, maybe it is some kind of Main Line Way which only means that I've been good friends with most all those guys at Merion for about thirty years now and we have all talked about all kinds of things together over the years.    



And if you want to see the Macdonald letter come over to the barn/office any time. You can also find it on one of the old Merion threads if you know how to search for it. Frankly, I don't, so I can't help you that way.

It's also interesting to me that you guys seem to want to go back and just speculate what CBM may've done with the Ardmore routing. That's essentially what many of those old Merion threads from over a year ago were. What's  new that you want to go back and speculate about that again?

However, on that note----eg speculating----Mike Cirba certainly did come up with some good food for thought this morning about why that Nov 1910 land plan does not show that area to be part of the course that CBM recommended that they buy in June 1910.

Personally, I have always had a real strong hunch about what that 3 acres RR land was all about in all of this but I never really mentioned it because it would be just speculation on my part but since everybody seems to want to speculate again if you want me to I'd be glad to speculate on it as you seem to be doing.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  

1.  I happened to check my junk mail today and noticed more of your unsolicited and unwelcome emails.   I've told you before to quit sending them.   There is no need to remind me of what I have posted. It is not as if I am sitting in front of my computer at 1:30 am, posting drunken messages which I might not even remember the next day.  

2.  About your comments to Jim immediately above,  it seems like a long way of saying you were bragging about how various Merion officials were on board with your threats to use my (and TomM's) correspondence with Merion try to further your petty agenda against us.   But of course when pressed you backed well away, proving this just more empty rhetoric.

3.  And as for your constant bragging about how you guys discovered the information contained in the Merion Minutes, what a laugh.   Is that really all you guys have to point to try and fluff up your reputations as researchers?   After more than a decade of declaring yourselves experts on Merion, after repeated claims that you had scoured the earth for all relevant documents related to Merion's beginnings, after speculating that the relevant information was lost in a flood, and after my essay was posted, you guys finally -- FINALLY -- got around to checking for the Board's minutes at MCC?

Just where did you think MCC's Board minutes might have been?  Other than at MCC, I mean?  Anyway, that's a real doozy of discovery by a couple of crack historians!   Especially considering that had you ever bothered to read Merion's Heilman history you'd have known where minutes were there all along.  

And save the song and dance about how you guys weren't interested in Merion, but only Flynn.  You guys had long claimed to be experts on Merion who had searched everywhere for information!  Besides, you guys might not realize this but I hear Flynn used to work at Merion.  Don't you think minutes might not have been a bad thing for you to check even with reference to him?


_________________________________________

Jim Sullivan,  

The CBM letter not only mentioned the hole lengths and using the land behind the clubhouse, it also mentioned using the quarry and the creeks, and that CBM could not say for certain if the course would fit without a contour map.  

When we first we hear from Hugh Wilson it is after he had spoken to CBM, and realizing the value of his advice, was sending a contour map of "the course" to Washington to start the soil evaluation process.    

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  

1.  I happened to check my junk mail today and noticed more of your unsolicited and unwelcome emails.   I've told you before to quit sending them. There is no need to remind me of what I have posted. It is not as if I am sitting in front of my computer at 1:30 am, posting drunken messages which I might not even remember the next day. "



David:

Sorry about that but you must admit all they are is a copy of one of your insulting posts calling me a creep or a stalker or a drunk or a liar----nothing more. I put nothing in those emails other than your post. There are no comments at all from me. I hope they will just serve to work as a reminder to you to not make posts like that. I think it's better by email that way than to keep responding on the DG with those kinds of posts. If you think I post an insulting remark to you calling you the likes of a drunk, creep and liar etc I suggest you do the same and just copy it and send it to me via email with no comment, and I might get the hint as I hope you will by me emailing you your insulting posts and nothing more.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'll repost the CBM letter and answer your questions later$

I'm not sure why all these researchers can't locate it here and cut andpaste it?  .

Guess they'd rather tell you what thwy think it says, or what they want you to think it says, rather than letting you read it yourself.

Me...I'm on a blackberry, so that's my excuse. 

[TEPaul]

"2.  About your comments to Jim immediately above,  it seems like a long way of saying you were bragging about how various Merion officials were on board with your threats to use my (and TomM's) correspondence with Merion try to further your petty agenda against us.   But of course when pressed you backed well away, proving this just more empty rhetoric."


David:

No bragging intended. I was just explaining to you when you asked me if there was some kind of 'Main Line Way' going on around here that there probably is and I explained to you what it is. All the people who have run that club and all its committees for about the last thirty years have been good friends of mine and as such it is not unusual with golf and other social events to talk about all kinds of things, and one of them is all the things that go on in and around our clubs including Merion.

For some reason you seem to think they should treat you and your correspondences in some sort of secure and confidential manner? Why do you think that? We are all friends here and none of them know you except for your participation on here particularly involving all the things you have said about Merion's history, particularly that ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" and what you have said about one of its members and some of its friends. I suppose you hope or would like to think they should respect you after all that but that may not be the smartest or the most logical thought or hope on your part given your MO on here. Of those who have read that ridiculous essay of yours or perhaps some of your posts about Merion and Morrison or me---when we see one another they just tend to shake their heads and laugh. I do not mean to say or imply by saying that, that occassionally some of their comments about you two are not much more colorful and blue because if I said or implied that I'm afraid it really would be quite "meaningfully inaccurate."  

[TEPaul]

"3.  And as for your constant bragging about how you guys discovered the information contained in the Merion Minutes, what a laugh.   Is that really all you guys have to point to try and fluff up your reputations as researchers?   After more than a decade of declaring yourselves experts on Merion, after repeated claims that you had scoured the earth for all relevant documents related to Merion's beginnings, after speculating that the relevant information was lost in a flood, and after my essay was posted, you guys finally -- FINALLY -- got around to checking for the Board's minutes at MCC.

Just where did you think MCC's Board minutes might have been?  Other than at MCC, I mean?  Anyway, that's a real doozy of discovery by a couple of crack historians!   Especially considering that had you ever bothered to read Merion's Heilman history you'd have known where minutes were there all along.  

And save the song and dance about how you guys weren't interested in Merion, but only Flynn.  You guys had long claimed to be experts on Merion who had searched everywhere for information!  Besides, you guys might not realize this but I hear Flynn used to work at Merion.  Don't you think minutes might not have been a bad thing for you to check even with reference to him?"



David:

Can you honestly deny when you keep making that point that I have told you about a dozen times over the years that Wayne and I were originally only concentrating on William Flynn and particularly his relationship with Merion? Even Cirba mentioned that to you on this thread. So why do you keep making the point that Wayne and I said we were experts on all things to do with Merion's history and all its eras?

We probably are now but that is not what we were doing or concentrating on when these obnoxious Merion threads began by you and MacWood over seven years ago now.

But I am very glad to have found out not only about the particulars and details of the MCC move to Ardmore and who those people are, including some of them like Gates Lloyd who was a partner in my great, great grandfather's company, Drexel & Co. but also about the larger history of the Main Line and its interesting ethos that so much revolved around the Pennsylvania RR Corporation and how that influenced the development of the app 50,000 acre Main Line (formerly the Welsh Tract, a Penn land grant parcel). It's a fascinating story and a fascinating ethos and it's too bad you say it bores you!    Either you're not much of an historian if you feel that way or you must be awful defensive and insecure about something to do with it.

By the way, do you think the MCC board meeting minutes talk about William Flynn? Perhaps you really should try to establish a working research relationship with Merion or MCC if they will let you at this poinnt and see about that for yourself as we have.  

There is far more about Flynn and Merion in those so-called "Agronomy Letters" that Wayne and I were the first to find at the USGA's Green Section when they first came in an of course long before someone like you or MacWood had ever heard of them or seen them.

I think it is very obvious to most everyone on here, and elsewhere, that this entire MO or yours and MacWood's on here is only about the fact that you two are just so competitive in the area of being percieved as researchers. If I could make a suggestion to you two I would recommend that you try to learn far better how to actually ANALYZE the research material all of us find and contribute on here. I'm afraid you have a very long way to go as a good golf course architecture ANALYST, judging from that ridiculous IMO essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," as well as your fixation on thread after thread on here with trying to defend its points that have gone down like a sinking ship in the arena of consensus opinion.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul.

1.  No, your creepy emails are not all just copies of my posts.  Some are, some aren't.  Most are unopened.  

Here is an idea.  Quit sending anything.  Only a real sleazebag would continue to send anything when asked repeatedly not to.

2.  That you would pretend there was nothing wrong with trying to use our correspondence with Merion to embarrass us is further indication that you are a morally bankrupt creep who has no comprehension of even the most basic concepts of civility.    

You really should try to remember that YOU ARE NOT MERION.  YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR MERION. In fact YOU ARE NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF MERION.   Merion must thank their lucky stars for that.

3.  Of course I can deny it.   All I have to do is read your posts where you repeatedly asserted your authority on all things Merion, and where you claimed to have scoured the earth for all records Merion!    Besides, Wayne had already written a 120 page history (and I use that term loosely) of Merion.  And you had written the GAP piece and who knows what other inside jobs.     Surely it ought to have occurred to you to do more than paraphrase Tolhurst?   Why don't you post that GAP piece, Tom?  Or Wayne's version of the history before my Essay?  I need a laugh.  

And Tom, I love history.   But what you drone on and on about isn't history, it is fantasy.  I'd rather watch daytime television. Lifestyles of the Rich and Pompous.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()