[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I can't answer for John Capers, but if I was him there would be a much sterner action against Tom Macwood than what i did in my postings. That being said, he slandered me, admitted it and then refused to apologize despite NUMEROUS attempts on my part to get him to do so in a private and non-embarrassing manner.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no excuse for what he did and why he refuses to apologize to me, let alone Mr. Capers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

In the old school world, I agree you should get an apology.  I am not sure you will get one, nor do I think many think they need to apolgize for the crap they put on the internet. It seems to be the culture.

Not saying its right.

[DMoriarty]

Phil,  You owe us an apology by selfishly polluting this thread with your petty grudge against Tom MacWood.

Phil and Jeff,

If Mr. Capers feels he deserves an apology, then he really ought to take it up with Wayne Morrison and TEPaul.  They are the ones who have injected him into these conversations, and they are the ones who have been pretending for years that Mr. Capers and Merion have been in cahoots with TEPaul and Wayne's unethical and underhanded manipulation and abuse of MCC's and MGC's records.  
____________________________________

Jeff,

I see you have digressed yet again into trying to make this about your gratuitous meanderings into my discussion style rather than about the issues at hand.  Perhaps you should concentrate a bit more on your discussion style, which is full of stong opinions but oddly disconnected from the actual historical record.  If your opinion is unsupportable by the real record, perhaps you should reconsider your opinion.  

For example, you accuse me of telling you that you "just don't understand."   I don't recall telling you that and have looked back through the recent record and don't see it.   Where did I tell you this, exactly?  

For another example, you accuse me of thinking "nothing they wrote really meant what it says."    You not only mischaracterize my position, you also apparently assume that YOU KNOW what they meant.  All I said was that the meaning of "CBM's plans" is ambiguous.  And it is, as even you admit.  Yet you go ahead and take a shot at me while pretending you know exactly what it means.

For another example, you claim that the two statements taken together "says they took their plans to him."  Where do the two plans taken together say this, exactly?   I don't doubt they took whatever they had with them, but I don't see it in the two statements.

For another example, you bizarrely claim that you "can’t believe CBM was telling them how to use surveyor’s tools, or hammers and wood lath, as DM would have us believe."    I have NEVER claimed that is what they were doing.  For you to claim this is preposterous.  

For another example, you wrote  "for DM to tell me the record says CBM routed the course . . .."  Again a misrepresentation on your part.  I don't believe I have ever told you that Merion's record explicitly says that CBM routed the course.    But the evidence strongly suggests that CBM was heavily involved in routing the course and in planning the details of the layout.

As I wrote above, if you cannot support your position without exaggerating or misrepresenting the record, then your position is very likely flawed.      


Also, Jeff, again and again you seem to think your opinion (or rather TEPaul's opinion) ought to be treated as fact.   Some of this stuff is ambiguous.   For you to pretend otherwise surely doesn't help matters.    

Your insistence that Wilson wrote Lesley's report is a good example, especially when you use "your opinion" as to the author as a counter to my claim that there is NO EXPLICIT MENTION OF WILSON BY MERION'S BOARD DURING THE DESIGN PERIOD.

____________________________________________________________________

Let's try again . . .
As I understand the record, THERE WAS NO EXPLICIT MENTION OF WILSON IN THE MERION BOARD MINUTES DURING THE PLANNING STAGE; FROM BEFORE THE PURCHASE (summer 1910) UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD APPROVED THE PLAN DETERMINED BY CBM (April 1911.)

Does anyone know of any facts to the contrary?

[DMoriarty]

Agreed.

In total, I disagree with David's interpretation of CBM's role because it flies in the face of much of the Merion people's comments at the time. I have a hard time believing they were anything other than very generous to Macdonald.

You've lost me here Jim.   Specifically, what comments by Merion people?  Because so far as I can tell, my position is based on their comments, so I have trouble seeing how it could fly in the face of those same comments.

Do you think that Merion's Administration overstated CBM's role while the course was being designed?    Did the 1914 Lesley Article overstate his role?   Do you think Hugh Wilson overstated his role in 1916?  Do you think Alan Wilson overstated his role almost a decade later?  Did the press accounts overstate CBM's role, as well?  Did Whigham overstate his role?If anyone overstated his role, how so? And why?   Was there a Merion conspiracy to overstate CBM's role in planning Merion East?   

Also setting aside CBM,  do you agree that there is a conspicuous absence of any mention of Hugh Wilson when he was supposedly planning the course? 
____________________________

You ask how we know that Robert Lesley was not the author of the report given to the board in 1916. So far as I am concerned he was the most likely author and the real question is where he got the information.

Lesley was not a member of the Construction committee and therefore presumably he was not at the NGLA meetings, so the information must have come from someone who was there.  But I've been wondering for a while, based on a number of small details, just who exactly was at NGLA?   Wilson was there and he wasn't alone, but I am unclear on who else was there.   This seem like something that would have been mentioned in the minutes, which is one of many reasons I think that TEPaul and Wayne are still playing games with the source material.     

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I polluted nothing on this thread. I raised points and answered questions and made appropriate comments where necessary. That you don't think so is simply your opinion.

By the way, it isn't a "petty grudge." Tom insulted, me, my name and my honor. Petty in your eyes but not in mine.

[DMoriarty]

Grow up, Phil.

[Phil_the_Author]

  David

And by the way, I think it is the height of hypocrisy that when I am called a liar and call for a proper apology I am hijacking threads and acting like a child, but when you feel that you've been mistreated by tom Paul or Mike Cirba or any others it is perfectly proper to insult them and make your own set of demands on threads throughout the site.

Grow up yourself David!

[Dan Herrmann]

Philip,
+1

[DMoriarty]

Dan Herrmann,

Let me seriously ask you what you pretended to ask me to set up your insult.

What is your purpose here?  What are you trying to accomplish?

Same questions for you, Phil.   

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,
Yes, I know...like saying Barker was going to lay out the course when the board report specifically said that Barker was tetained by Connell.

Yes, like that and the individuals involved within the syndicate: Lloyd, Atterbury, Griscom. Lelsey and Huston. Those names do not appear in the previous articles or 11/15 MCC report. The 11/24 article goes into the arrangement at the old course, the breakdown of acres owned by PRR and those owned by Griscom. It mentions the annual rent paid to the PRR ($800). It mentions the cost per acre the consortium paid, which is not in the report. It has the accurate purchase price and cost per acre (unlike the earlier articles). It joins Macdonald with Whigham and segregates them from Barker. It mentions that Barker is the former Irish Am champion, which is not mentioned in the previous articles or the MCC report. The information in this article came from a very knowledgeable inside source within MerionCC.

The dateline of Lakewood, NJ may be a clue - Lesley was a member of the golf club at Lakewood.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim,

That could be.  But because TMac acts like he hasn't seen them, here is the passage from the minutes read by Leslie to the board.  I presume it was written by Hugh, although who knows, some other member of the committee may have been the wordsmith.  That said, it was NOT Leslie’s report:

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

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans." - MCC Minutes April 1911

David tells me that I "Just don't understand".  I think I do.  I read that as "plans and data gathered from abroad" and DM reads it as "The routing CBM did for Merion and the data he collected from abroad."  I believe that if the committee wanted to say the plans CBM developed for MCC, they would have written it that way, whereas DM thinks nothing they wrote really meant what it says.

From David's own post earlier in this thread, here is Hugh Wilson's recollection just a few short years after in 1916 (which he can use to prove CBM's involvement, but if I mention a 1914 dinner, I am  of course stretching the record a bit):

The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and green keeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.

Note what it specifically says they went over.  Yes, they studied HIS plans, which I agree could have been NGLA, GBI sketches, etc.  It MAY have been Merion plans, but the two taken together says they took their plans to him, and they modified into FIVE DIFFERENT plans them based on his advice on their return.  Of course, DM takes that to mean one plan with five minor variations, and the definition of minor and major can vary among the most civil of debaters.

Also, while they never mention design, preferring and referring to everything as construction, they talk about the principles of laying out holes, and I can’t believe CBM was telling them how to use surveyor’s tools, or hammers and wood lath, as DM would have us believe.
please note that they learned PRINCIPLES of architecture.

They suggest to OTHER COMMITTEES to visit the classics like NGLA and PV.

When talking about the design and construction of their course, it is ALWAYS in the WE tense.

So, again, yes CBM was a great help.  The meetings with CBM were key to the process. But for DM to tell me the record says CBM routed the course, either before that meeting or before the Nov. 15, 1910 meeting, land swap included, I just don’t see it in what the participants wrote about it.  Sorry, maybe I am just too dense.

If DM and the Philly guys are arguing smaller details than that, then in many cases, they really seem to be arguing past each other for no apparent reason other than to keep arguing.  While all sides claim their motivation is to find out what happened, keeping up the good fight is really more important, because truly, actions speak louder than words.

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to a separate or dedicate commendation of M&W. Yes, I'm very aware of those accounts.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil,

I already read them and I know what you mean.  If it means anything, I thought your insult was a lot less defamatory than the one John Capers got!  Tom MacWood has seemingly talked right by obvious answers, asked already answered questions, etc.  Its just his style here.  Presumably, he finds it amusing, but we have all been annoyed from time to time.

Frankly, this place reminds me of taking the kids to a restaurant when young.  In my mostly dysfunctional family, we could only get 4 of 5 to be in a good mood during any given outing.  Tom Mac has been very civil to Mike Cirba in the same time frame as he was getting into it with you.  DM goes back and forth.  Even mild mannered moi has gotten a bit snippy from time to time!  I try to be civil to all, even in disagreement, although I made a post to DM earlier that was kind of snippy.

Get off your high horse.

[Phil_the_Author]

Get off yours and apologize!

You brought up the Whiffensnoozer thread so that I wouldn't discuss these things on this thread... Yet you seem to be ignoring that. You also seem to be ignoring the Shawnee thread. You should look at it...

[Tom MacWood]

Tom the Mac,

You stated, "Phil-the-author, I don't recall mentioning anything about the number of courses Barker laid out during those three weeks in November/December. The article claimed he would layout several...no number was given. Barker redesigned East Lake, which may be the reason he arrived a day or two before the tournament."

You used the word "several." The last I checked that word means more than one and almost always at least THREE.

You clearly stated that it had been reported that "the NY Tribune (and NY Times) that Barker was off on a three week trip and before he returns several new courses would be staked out."

The last I checked East Lake was already existing and so wouldn't be a NEW COURSE! So what were those "several new courses" that he "staked out" on that three week trip during which he spent at least a week in Atlanta PLAYING a TOURNAMENT at East Lake and setting a new 72-hole record by 14 shots.

As amazing as that must have been, evidently the reporter missed the truly incredible part as there is NO MENTION of his staking out the new course there in-between shots!

Phil-the-author
I give the author more leeway than you do. I read several new courses to be both new and redesigned courses, but anyway East Lake, Grove Park, Brookhaven, Druid Hills, and Merion would be my several.

[Phil_the_Author]

So, you are claiming that Barker STAKED OUT Merion during that three-week period in December 1910?

That is certainly a new claim. On what do you base it?

Interesting, with all of David's complaints and yours that I was "hijacking the thread" it was my insistence on going down this road that got you to make this claim...

I see you're still ignoring all the rest...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom MacWood,

No problems on forgetting or thinking there are other documents. I took a while to scroll through this and other threads to make sure I am not crazy. No one can remember all of this stuff, nor should they be required to.

As to the other stuff, I will dismount now.....

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

I think you are off on your date with Druid Hills. They began construction on July 8, 1912. That wopuld be more than a year and a half after you say he staked the course during those three weeks in December 1910. Funny thing as their history mentions his spending time designing the course AFTER he won the professional tournament in 1911...

SO again, on what do you base tour claim that Barker STAKED OUT the Merion east course in December 1910?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Its not really a new claim. He always maintained Barker laid it out because of that 11-24 article and the fact that they mentioned a routing by him (which has never been found) after his June 1910 visit.

Would it be possible?  He was down south by 12.5.  Merion took posession of the land on 12.16 (or agreed in principle to do that) and Evans said they would proceed immediately to lay off a golf course (whatever that means)

So, either MCC hired Barker before the 11.15 plan was shown to the members, or hired him in after that, but before actually taking control of the land, from 11.16 to 12.01 or so, even though they hadn't formalized the deal, with him providing the routing on the last day before he left for Atlanta, for this to be true.

Is it possible?  Sure. Is there any internal record of it?  We haven't seen it, either because it doesn't exist, or because Merion is hiding it for reasons unknown.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I understand and agree with all of that. I want to know what he bases that claim on. Heaven knows if I had said something like that both he and David would be all over me demanding absolute proofs and if I didn't provide them then they would tell me I shouldn't comment on the thread...

[Tom MacWood]

This is from 2/1911 American Golfer:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1911/ag54o.pdf

[Tom MacWood]

Kelly
Why don't you start separate thread for those interested in discussing motivation.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

Thank you for the reference on Druid Hills.

Now, about my other questions:

Upon WHAT do you base as PROOF that Barker STAKED OUT Merion East during that three-week period when he was both playing golf and staking out courses in Atlanta? Put up or shut up on this one Tom...

Secondly. When will you apologize? I posted the ABSOLUTE PROOFS that I have the documents that you accused me of lying about. If you are IGNORING the threads you show yourself to be a very little man and dishonorable. I insist because for me it is NOT about books or writing, but about the honor of my name and person. You slandered me and IGNORING what everyone else can see for themselves on the Whiffensnoozer thread that YOU brought back up and the SHAWNEE thread where I posted the proofs shows you to be a fool as well.

Jeff Brauer simply agrees that you should apologize to me and you tell him to "Get off his high horse" yet you won't face up to what you did. There isn't an animal tall enough in the world for you to get on and act that way.

I gave you every opportunity to handle this as gentlemen and YOU refused to.

Sorry Kelly, I wanted to make sure that you understand that for me it really is simply a point of honor. I was raised and taught that golf was a game that gentlemen and men of honor play. You break a rule, you own up to it. It is a game of joy and camaraderie and I believe that this forum should be according to those same rules.

I hope you can understand how it really is the principle of honor that motivates me in this. If you look at the Whiffensnoozer thread which Tom brought back up so that the issue could be dealt with there, which by the way is more than a bit disingenuous as he commented earlier on here about starting another thread for it that he could IGNORE, you will see parts of the email I sent to Tom in which I asked him to admit and apologize in private and I would accept it and not embarrass him here. You will also see a part of an email that I sent to Ran when Tom wouldn't respond to me and the PROOF I SENT HIM that I hadn't been lying, where I implored Ran to try and convince Tom to settle this privately like gentlemen. He ignored this as well.

There is one other point that needs mentioning as well. When speaking to Ran on the phone about this, RAN suggested that I post the information and EMBARRASS Tom Macwood! RAN said that. I posted that on the other thread that Tom seemingly keeps ignoring. I even told Ran at the time that I didn't want to do that and that I wanted to end this privately. I think that says an awful lot...

I have done everything that someone who has been treated as poorly as Tom has treated me can do to SAVE HIM FROM EMBARRASSMENT and yet he still won't do the right thing!

So, yes, Kelly, it really is a matter of honor for me.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
Why are you wasting our time? If I had definitive proof Barker laid out Merion we wouldn't have this thread, and Mike and TEP's brains would've imploded by now. I've explained why I believe Barker is the most likely candidate numerous times, the most recent explanation being earlier this morning. Did you miss it?

Could you explain again what your purpose is on this thread?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

I am on this thread to learn about Merion and the side issues those questions generate. As far as "wasting our time" is concerned, I'm NOT the one who stated DEFINITIVELY how during that three week period in December that Barker staked out "East Lake, Grove Park, Brookhaven, Druid Hills, and Merion..." That would be YOU who said that.

So if now you are saying that there is NO PROOF of that claim YOU made, I must ask, why are YOU wasting our time?

Finally, why will you not answer to the slander you posted toward me calling me a liar? I've provided the absolute proof that I didn't after sending it to you privately and then offering to do so again when you claimed that you never received it.

Because you keep avoiding this you do nothing but drag it out. A once-wise person suggested to me that I could end the issue by doing a simple thing. If I simply posted the proof from the board minutes he would accept them and "withdraw his charge" against me. The funny thing is that after I finally received permission to do so and posted copies of those very notes, that once-wise person refused and continues to refuse to even look at them and will not withdraw the slanderous statements he made in attacking my honor.

Question, would you say doing that makes HIM a LIAR?

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Seriously - I just wish you'd be more kind.  That's all.  Just treat everybody here with respect and love and it'll be returned in kind (sorry - my religious upbringing is a constant in my life).

I have no problem with your passion - in fact, I respect it.  I love your quixotic attitude (and I mean that as a compliment).  But you seem to want to irritate others and to treat them like garbage.

You don't need to do that.  Just show respect, and you'll get respect.

I've had the honor to spend time with Tom Paul, Wayne, Mike, Philip, and others.  All are true gentlemen in real life (as I'm sure you are), but when slammed verbally, they'll defend themselves.

We Philly guys are very passionate but are also, as a rule, very friendly, warm, and open to new ideas. 

It'd be so easy...  Follow the golden rule, and ignore bad attitudes from others while they adjust to your new MO.

Or, in the immortal words of Olivia Newton John, "Have you ever been mellow?  Have you ever tried?" 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()