[Tom MacWood]

I asked Jim.

[JESII]

MCCGA was incorporated and purchased some (possibly all, I forget) of the land in 1910 and or 1911. I saw the deeds...and so have you and David.

David,

You're an attorney...is it common for official board minutes to leave out sections of what was discussed during a meeting? My understanding is that minutes are taken to summarize the conversation for later review. Is this the purpose of taking minutes? Sayers referred to it as a 'circular letter', and it was signed "by order of the board". I'm not saying it wasn't official Merion Board letterhead, just that it was an invitation to invest after the transaction had been completed.

It was most definitely not a summary of all the efforts the board had gone through prior to making the decision...and I'd be curious what possible fiduciary responsibility you think they would have had to disclose every reason for the move.

[TEPaul]

"I asked Jim."

Of course you did, MacWood; it's obviously far too difficult or painful for you to ask questions about Merion of anyone who really knows its history because he has seen all the historic material about it that you obviously haven't.

Talk about a circle jerk----you guys pretty much define it on here.

I doubt you could have a serious and intelligent conversation with me about the history of Merion if your house depended on it. It seems the reason for that is you are so scared of appearing dumb on here. Too bad you don't realize you do anyway because of the way you carry on in threads like this one.

So many people have asked me why I bother dealing with people like you and Moriarty on this website and remind me there are so many better things for me to do with my time with golf architecture and its history. Not until tonight have I realized just how right they obviously are.

[Tom MacWood]

"I asked Jim."

Of course you did, MacWood; it's obviously far too difficult or painful for you to ask questions about Merion of anyone who really knows its history because he has seen all the historic material about it that you obviously haven't.

Talk about a circle jerk----you guys pretty much define it on here.

I beg your pardon. Are you saying Jim has no knowledge of Merion's history and/or is not privy to the evidence proving the incorporation?

[Mike Cirba]

There isn't an organization in the world that would ever refer to a member solicitation as an Annual Report, or a report of any kind.

[TEPaul]

"David, you're an attorney...is it common for official board minutes to leave out sections of what was discussed during a meeting? My understanding is that minutes are taken to summarize the conversation for later review. Is this the purpose of taking minutes?"


Jim Sullivan:

Why don't you ask him first if he has ever served on a board of directors of a private club anything like Merion? Why don't you ask him if he has ever served on a board as their legal counsel? Don't worry, if he just ignores those questions which I bet he will for pretty obvious reasons, such as he always has, and for reasons we have all become so used to on here, there are probably some ways to find out about him if we want to. Why, actually, don't you just ask him, if he was an attorney, and that he tells us he no longer practices as an attorney, WHY THAT IS?  

[Tom MacWood]

Did Tolhurst mention anything about incorporation? He said it was formed in 1909. Is that accurate?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Tom MacWood seems to just want to ask you questions about the incorporation of MCCGA and why it happened and if Tolhurst mentioned it. Obviously he doesn't feel very comfortable asking someone who actually knows----so that's fine and that sure is Tom MacWood, so since I'm pretty sure you don't know all those details, if you want to try to answer him, please feel free to call me anytime and ask me about all the details and I'd be glad to explain them all to you.

You know, I guess I'm just the eternal optimist because I never really have imagined just how defensive and totally insecure Moriarty and MacWood really are but the last few days on here on this subject is making it crystal clear.

[JESII]

In this usage, formed is synonymous with incorporated...and it was done in 1910. Not meaningfully inaccurate.

How about the third underline...MCCGA bought and leased back the land. I thought this was true, but maybe not...and certainly should be indisputable, whichever the case may be.

Anyone?

[JESII]

Tom M,

I have not seen any of this material other than what's been posted on here, and the deeds for most, or all of the land purchases.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Formed is synonymous with incorporating? What else is 'formed' synonymous with?

Was the MCCGA formed (whatever your definition) prior to 1909 or was that just a typo in the 1898 Phila Inquirer?

And he is only off by a year on the incorporation. Is that all? You are obviously not someone interested historical accuracy.

Wow.

[TEPaul]

"In this usage, formed is synonymous with incorporated...and it was done in 1910. Not meaningfully inaccurate.

How about the third underline...MCCGA bought and leased back the land. I thought this was true, but maybe not...and certainly should be indisputable, whichever the case may be.

Anyone?"



OH MY GOD!

We have been through all this stuff before and it seems like for years now. Of course it's true, and that's why they formed the fucking corporation in Dec 1910 to buy the land and lease it back to MCC.

Let me ask you something, Jim, or even Moriarty or MacWood or even Mike Cirba----have you even bothered to look at who the officers of that corporation (MCCGA CORPORATION) that was formed in Dec 1910 were or who its president was and WHY?? Have you even bothered to read both how (specifically financially) and legally C. DeWitt Cuylers (MCC's legal counsel and board member) recommended it to MCC and MCC's long-term president Allen Evans? And if you haven't then why haven't you?

Honestly, do any of you actually want to learn something about Merion's history or is your only interest just arguing with each other endlessly as you have been on this thread for the last few days?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom M,

I have not seen any of this material other than what's been posted on here, and the deeds for most, or all of the land purchases.

What was the date of incorporation?

[JESII]

MacWood,

Are you drunk? Stoned? Or intentionally acting like a jerk off?

[TEPaul]

"Jim
Formed is synonymous with incorporating? What else is 'formed' synonymous with?

Was the MCCGA formed (whatever your definition) prior to 1909 or was that just a typo in the 1898 Phila Inquirer?

And he is only off by a year on the incorporation. Is that all? You are obviously not someone interested historical accuracy.

Wow."




I am going to cut and paste and save that as just another great example of the "go nowhere," "get nothing accomplished" MO of Tom MacWood on here and for many years now.


What they FORMED in 1909 that Tolhurst referred to as the ORGANIZATION known as MCCGA and the reasons they formed it (MCCGA) may've been some kind of evolutionary lead-up for completely logical and explainable reasons to the legally incoporated Second Class Pennsylvania CORPORATION, registered in Delaware County that was registered with the state (Merion has all that documentation) to buy the land of Merion East at Ardmore and lease it back to the club (MCC) for 999 years and that actually lasted until 1942 (after the vote was taken on Dec 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor Day) to separate from MCC) but what was formed in 1909 was not the very same thing as the corporation known as MCCGA Corporation formed in Dec 1910. What was formed in 1909 by MCC was known as an ORGANIZATION, not a legal CORPORATION as was done in Dec, 1910. If it was formed as a legal and state registered corporation in 1909 then why in the hell do you think Cuylers went to all that trouble to write that legally complex letter to Evans that was made part of the MCC board minutes and was actually enacted in Dec. 1910 to receive the land that was to become Merion East?

[JESII]

Tom P,

What was formed in 1909?

I can't make sense of that paragraph.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,

What was formed in 1909?

I can't make sense of that paragraph."



Come on Jim, what is the problem here? Why don't you just stop trying to listen to Moriarty and MacWood and just consider the actual FACTS here which they don't have and never have had, and even if they did seemingly would never dream of admitting to unless they were man enough to actually finally admit how wrong they are and have been for so long about this entire subject of Merion. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one if I were you.

If you are willing to do that then please tell me so. If you aren't willing to do that then please tell me that so I can stop wasting my time here trying to explain something I already have explained in total detail and for about a year and a half now but which apparently the 4-6 players on this subject just never really got.

I mean anyone can just say, "That's my opinion, and this is my opinion" but if they have no actual and contemporaneous material on the subject that we do, then what in the hell are they going to base their opinions on that essentially poves it.

[TEPaul]

Well, you know what, Jim, if you really want to try to discuss things on here about Merion with Tom MacWood and David Moriarty, I'm just not interested anymore. And I can most certainly guarantee you Merion isn't interested because it just occured to me I know all those people who have run that club for the last forty years and all of them that are still around have discussed this subject with me about Merion's history as promoted by these two wackos in that ridiculous essay and I know how they feel about it.

God only knows why but I guess I'm the eternal optimist and I've always felt that some of these people on here actually want to know the truth and actually learn something. I don't believe I feel that way about them anymore and that's pretty disappointing actually. Moriarty and MacWood must be a couple of truly insecure dudes to carry on the way they have on here for so long.

I guess I'm just kinda slow on the uptake to not have accepted that on here as so many others already have.

[DMoriarty]

Jim

I didn't understand that paragraph either.  But the next couple sure sound familiar.   I think what TEPaul is trying to explain in that MCCGA predated the incorporation of the same.    Sound familiar?  

Regarding what gets put in the meeting minutes, generally all of the decisions are recorded, the formal details, etc., but the degree of actual specificity as to the discussion varies.  It depends upon the organization, the board, the secretary, and the secretary's methodology for transcribing or recording.  

But Jim, we are carrying on here as if there is a dispute between the Nov. 1910 statement on the one hand, and the 1910 annual report (in the minutes) and/or the minutes themselves, on the other hand.   As far as I know, there isn't.

 Let me ask you;  Did the Board meeting minutes (including the 1910 annual report) mention anything about the Haskell ball?  

Because, frankly, I think TEPaul is playing you for a fool here, just like he played Cirba for a fool back when Cirba was rampaging about the Wilson trip.  TEPaul and Wayne knew (or should have known) that Cirba was wrong, but they let him rampage on anyway, and even encouraged it.  Here, TEPaul knows whether a discussion of the Haskell was discussed in the minutes.   If it had really been discussed really TEPaul would have quoted it (probably inaccurately) a long time ago.  

TEPaul, What exactly do Merion's minutes say about the Haskell Ball?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Are you going to explain why you again misrepresented the minutes above?   Never mind.  It is a rhetorical question.

[JESII]

David,

You and MacWood don't answer questions any better than TEPaul does.

I'm not suggesting the Haskell was part of the Board conversation so I'm not being played for any fool...what I am saying is that not much of what Tom underlined in his initial post of this thread is actually wrong and It's becoming clear that you guys sure can't back up your claims.


How about point #3 - the purchase and lease-back. How is that wrong?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Are you going to explain why you again misrepresented the minutes above?   Never mind.  It is a rhetorical question."


I'd certainly consider it if you'd explain why you think anything I said about the minutes was misrepresented, and I'd be even happier to explain why something you think I said about the minutes is misrepresnted if you'd ever do what you should have done in the first place about Merion's and MCC's minutes.

Come on Moriarty, even an insecure argumentative little light-weight like you should be able to admit that if you are going to do a decent job of writing about a subject like that one the very first thing you should have done is establish a working research relationship with that club and go there and analyze it all as we have. I mean get over it and just admit that no one, and certainly not you can get around doing that and do a decent job of it.

That's pretty much the first order of business for any researcher/writer/historian. It works a whole lot better than just manufacturing some bullshit scenario about the history of a course, putting it out here and then screaming bloody murder like some egocentric spoilt child when you get criticized for it and THEN demand that you be given the material by the people who criticized you using material you should've had in the first place.


 But as you said, maybe that is just a "never mind" because just about everthing you say on here is rhetorical anyway.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, What exactly do Merion's minutes say about the Haskell Ball?"



WELL, David Moriarty, if you have a modicum of sense or commonsense left I guess I should tell you that we would like to go back and see what the MCC minutes say about the Haskell ball in 1909 (so we can take a closer look at what Tolhurst (and/or Heilman) might have been looking at when they researched and wrote their books) or have you not even figured out YET that MERION GC does not have all the MCC archives in their archives and/or why?

If you want to continue to talk about anything to do with Merion in the future then you are pretty much going to have to answer my question above to my satisfaction. Failing that you will continue to be considered, by Merion and the rest of us, along with that ridiculuous essay of yours, the uninteresing little argumentative twit you and the rest of it with you really are. If that's the way you want it then just soldier on as you have on here. If not and you change your approach and tone I'm sure you know where to find us. Whether or not you know how to apologize or are capable of it is probably another matter entirely.

[DMoriarty]

Jim

Forming and incorporating are not synonomous, especially when the Association which incorporates has been around for a dozen years.  

Which questions didn't I answer?  I'm trying to answer as best I can.   Is it possible that you just don't like the answers, or don't believe them?

If you are not saying that the Haskell ball was part of the Board conversation, then I guess I have no idea what we are talking about. On the one hand we have an unambigous statement of Merion's Board.   On the other hand, what do we have?  

As for the purchase and lease back, I don't think I said Tolhurst was wrong. I think what I said it was oversimplified, and that there were a series of small details that weren't accurate, but that whether or not these mistakes were meaninful was a question of one's perspective. But if I recall correctly, ultimately the MCCGA ended up with the property in its name and apparently leased it back to MCC.  

Jim, I am participating in this exercise because I was under the impression that you were actually curious as to what was wrong in Tolhurst.   But, unfortunately, it seems more and more like TomM's comment really just pissed you off royally, and that all you are really interested in is trying to put MacWood in his place.  And you are lumping me in for reasons unknown to me.  Otherwise I am having trouble understanding why you keep throwing his claim in my face and making statements like "you guys sure cannot back up your claims."

If you are just here to get Tom MacWood then leave me out of it.  I've had enough of personal vendettas around here without stepping into another one.  

If you want to discuss the accuracies and inaccuracies of Tolhurst then great, but I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the attitude toward me.   If you aren't here to actually explore Tolhurst then I'm done.

_______________________________________________

TEPaul,

1.  I explained your latest misrepresentation of the minutes above.  

2. I also explained the absurdity of your claim that I needed Merion's or documents for my paper.  You guys didnt have the minutes until after my essay came out.   You didn't even have the November 1910 records until I sent them to Wayne.  So quit pretending that you did.

3.  I wasn't looking for an answer regarding the Haskell Ball.   I just wanted to demonstrate to everyone how you are jerking us all around when it comes to these records.   Thanks for making my point.

[TEPaul]

".....especially when the Association which incorporates has been around for a dozen years."



But what is it in the records of Merion that leads you to assume that is true? What can you point to other than your own opinion? It seems like you somehow think your own opinion passes as "verifiable fact" I assure you it does not in anyone's opinion other than perhaps your own inflated opinion of yourself or your own bizarre rationale on here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()