[DMoriarty]

David,

I actually fell for it. Through out the day I was thinking how admirable it was that Tom Paul was coming forward with new information. So when I found out later that it was all a hoax I was very disappointed in Tom Paul.

Sorry Tom Paul, but I think you owe David an apology.

Bradley Anderson,

I appreciate your post and agree with you that it would be admirable for Tom Paul to come forward with this new information if it indeed exists.   That said, if you are correct that this is really all just a continuing cynical "hoax" on TEPaul's part, then he owes far more than just me an apology.

I too am curious as to how you "found out" it was all a hoax? Because if it is a hoax, TEPaul sure isn't letting up on it.   So far as I can tell, he is sticking with what he posted over a week ago . . . He has a disk from Drexel with all kinds of correspondence including letters between Lloyd and Macdonald which indicate that M&W and Lloyd were working on something out there with the course in the latter half of 1910, and that Macdonald and Whigham may've been the actual designers, etc..

Frankly, it is pretty amazing that not even TEPaul's friends believe him. I seem to be about the only one willing to give TEPaul a chance to back up his words without prejudging his motives.    

[TEPaul]

David:

In your last post in the second paragraph, re; the section in blue print----are you trying to present that on here as a quotation from me or only basically what you either want to think or hope I said?

I would be glad to consider and answer your questions in your initial post but before I do I have a condition for you to fulfill first.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul asked:  "In your last post in the second paragraph, re; the section in blue print----are you trying to present that on here as a quotation from me or only basically what you either want to think or hope I said?"

Neither. It was neither a direct quotation (thus no quotation marks, etc.) nor was it "only basically what [ I] either want to think or hope [TEPaul] said."  Rather than quote TEPaul verbatim for the third time, I put a few of his key points from post 509 into my own words.  Here again are the first three paragraphs from TEPaul's post in question.   I've highlighted select portions in blue, so anyone can easily judge for themselves whether I have twisted or misrepresented TEPaul here.

Sully:

Don't know as the MCC minutes don't say why.

However, today I received a disk from Drexel U that contains a ton of stuff on Lloyd. All kinds of correspondence including letters between Lloyd and Macdonald which helps explain why CBM wrote Lloyd at Drexel Co instead of the MCC Search Committee. As I suspected it seems he may've been acting pretty independent of MCC even though it was said in the MCC minutes he was representing MCC with HDC, at least until the initial offer was made in Nov. 1910. I have for some time suspected that his negotiations with HDC before the offer was made may've been part of his estate papers which were never reposited with MCC.

It looks like Moriarty and you may've been right all along and that they were working on something out there with the course in the latter half of 1910. Macdonald and Whigam may've been the actual designers and Wilson and committee may've been brought in later once the land was under Lloyd's control more for developing the agronomics of the course. Maybe this is why so much has been found from Wilson about agronomics and basically not a word from him has been found about actual architecture, at least not in the early days. But frankly I can't even remember when Hugh Wilson ever really spoke much about architecture.
. . .

[TEPaul]

"Rather than quote TEPaul verbatim for the third time, I put a few of his key points from post 509 INTO MY OWN WORDS." (caps mine)



David:

Thank you for that clarification. In my opinion, it's very important.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

We are going on two weeks now since you announced that you had received a disk "from Drexel U that contains a ton of stuff on Lloyd.  All kinds of correspondence including letters between Lloyd and Macdonald which helps explain why CBM wrote Lloyd at Drexel Co instead of the MCC Search Committee. . ."

At the time, you also stated:
“It looks like . . . they [M&W and Lloyd] were working on something out there with the course in the latter half of 1910. Macdonald and Whigam may've been the actual designers and Wilson and committee may've been brought in later once the land was under Lloyd's control more for developing the agronomics of the course. . . .”[/i]

After you had had almost a week to consider the digitized documents, I tried a few softball questions (Nos. 1,2, and 2) not meant to pry to deeply but rather to illicit a generalized confirmation of the nature and existence of these digitized records.  My purpose was to hopefully get the ball rolling in a positive direction.   Here again are my questions:

TEPaul,  

Again, thank you for bringing forward this information.  I very much appreciate it, and am sure others do as well.  I hope you don't mind answering a few questions and getting us started in a productive direction . . .

1. Now that you have had about a week to consider the documents, is there anything more you can tell us about them?  

2. Will you be making the documents available for others to review, and if so, how and when?   Or would you rather we contact Drexel directly to obtain the digital copies for ourselves?

2. I’ve reached out to a few of the more obvious repositories at Drexel University, but have thus far had no luck locating any collection at Drexel containing substantial material from or about HG Lloyd.  In fact, I have been told by a few archivists there that no such documents exist at Drexel.   But oftentimes at Universities one hand is unaware of what the other is up to, and given your statement that you got these documents from Drexel, I assume they must have been mistaken.    Can you tell us a bit more about from where within Drexel University these documents came?

Thanks.

David.

Unfortunately the questions have largely gone unanswered.    

I hope you agree some clarification is in order, especially given the speculation amongst your friends that this whole thing has been nothing but a cynical and convoluted charade, created and conceived to "kick me in the cajones."  

Again, TEPaul, can you please answer my questions (Nos. 1,2, and 2) and thus set the record straight about the nature and existence of these digitized documents?  

I have a feeling that I am not the only one who is curious about this matter.

Thanks.  


______________________________________________

[TEPaul]

David:

As you may suspect by now I have become quite suspicious of your motivations when you quote me and use '.....' in the quotation. Why do you do that?

Also, please read the last sentence in my #52 and hopefully begin to consider it.

Thank You

[DMoriarty]

David:

As you may suspect by now I have become quite suspicious of your motivations when you quote me and use '.....' in the quotation. Why do you do that?

I use an ellipsis (. . .) within a quotation to indicate that I have left material out of the quote.   I leave words out of a quotation when the words can be left out without altering the meaning of the quotation, and when the removed words are unnecessary, might confuse the reader, or might otherwise distract from the message I am trying to convey.   Using ellipses sometimes helps me focus the conversation on certain points that, in my opinion, are of particular importance.  For example, I used an ellipsis in the the following sentence, quoted above:    

"It looks like . . . they [M&W and Lloyd] were working on something out there with the course in the latter half of 1910."  

Here is the sentence in its entirety, with the part I left out in bold:  

"It looks like Moriarty and you may've been right all along and that they were working on something out there with the course in the latter half of 1910."

I left out that part because who "may've been right all along" is really beside the point I am trying to address and because it currently needs no further elucidation.  I'd rather move forward and discuss why you wrote "that they were working on something out there with the course in the latter half of 1910."

Don't get me wrong.  If your post was indeed sincere (and I hope it was) then I really do appreciate your acknowledgement that Jim and I may have had it right from the beginning.  That said, I'd rather we try to move the conversation forward than dwell on who got what right or wrong in the past.  Make sense?  

___________________________________________________________

Also, please read the last sentence in my #52 and hopefully begin to consider it.

Thank You

Here is the last sentence of post #52:  "I would be glad to consider and answer your questions in your initial post but before I do I have a condition for you to fulfill first."

Begin to consider what, exactly?   Surely I cannot even begin to consider whether I will agree to fulfill a condition precedent without you telling me what it is, can I?  

[PThomas]

reminds me of the show "Punk'd"

[TEPaul]

"Make sense?" 


David:

No it doesn't. If you quote me I would appreciate it if you quote me in the entirety.





"Here is the last sentence of post #52:  "I would be glad to consider and answer your questions in your initial post but before I do I have a condition for you to fulfill first."

Begin to consider what, exactly?   Surely I cannot even begin to consider whether I will agree to fulfill a condition precedent without you telling me what it is, can I?"




Of course you can't begin to consider whether you will agree to fulfill a condition without me telling you what it is. So here's what it is; You and I will agree to remove (delete) from this website any and all posts which either of us feel are personally insulting in any way. I spoke with Ran Morrissett about this the other day since as you know he created his own thread on here expressing his concern about the tone and behavior amongst some posters on this website. Obviously in his opinion some of those are the various Merion threads and the posts betwen us and in at least one exgregious case Tom MacWood in his opinion of Merion's historian. Ran Morrissett does not exactly want to try to do this himself and so I asked him if it would be productive and benefical going forward for you and I to agree to delete any and all posts that either of us feel is personally insulting towards the other. In this way I believe he feels it will contribute to starting out on a new and more productive and cooperative footing in the future. I completely agree with him. So that is my condition before I consider discussing with you whatever I have found on the subject of Merion.

[DMoriarty]

I too have spoken to Ran, but I think we should let him speak for himself on this and all other issues.

As for me, I have no intention of personally insulting you or anyone else, but if I slip up I will gladly remove any personal insults.  This goes whether you answer my questions or not. 

[TEPaul]

"I too have spoken to Ran, but I think we should let him speak for himself on this and all other issues."


David:

Absolutely. Let us let him speak for himself on this issue then.



"As for me, I have no intention of personally insulting you or anyone else, but if I slip up I will gladly remove any personal insults.  This goes whether you answer my questions or not."



Thank you for that. I hereby promise to entirely match you on that. But I was also speaking of the removal of the personally insulting posts on these Merion threads in the past and I believe Ran Morrissett was thinking of the same thing. They serve absolutely no purpose remaining on this website including in its back pages.

What are the chances we could get you, in a show of good faith, to try to prevail on Tom MacWood to delete what he said about Merion's historian since you did have something to say about that on one of these threads? He did not seem to want to respond to my request to him to delete it. That was no good at all. The man has never even used this website. That reflects poorly on most all of us and on this website's reputation and frankly goes right to the heart of the issue of potential and future access to material of clubs for many credible researchers they may not have previously known.

I have also recommended to Ran Morrissett that he consider writing a reliable SOP for all of us to use who are interested in directly researching the private material of golf clubs and using it on this website. The basic idea is that any credible researcher, analyst, writer first attempt with the use of this GCA Standard Operating research procedure to collaborate with their subject's clubs before researching and producing their work.

We also discussed the efficacy of forming a panel or editorial group of disinterested parties to review and comment on some potential IMO pieces for this website before they are made available on here. He mentioned the number 7-9. I have a few good candidates in mind and I suggest you and other interested participants on here think of some as well.

[DMoriarty]

Tom, we seem to be drifting well away from my questions and even your condition precedent.   As I explained above, I will do my best to keep the conversation civil, focused on golf course design, and moving forward.  If I step out of line, I will delete any personal insults.   I will do all this even if you continue to avoid my questions. Frankly, as "conditions" go, asking more is asking too much.  

As for your last post, I again suggest we let Ran speak for himself on all these issues.  

-- Ran has not told me to remove any of my past posts, but if he wants me to go through my 3000+ posts to cull out anything that someone might take as a personal insult he should contact me directly and I will be glad to discuss it with him.   In the meantime, I remain of the opinion that we should own our mistakes.  Any damage has long been done, and sanitizing the past record of wrongdoing sure won't teach us anything.   So I'd rather the insulting posts stand as they are, whether yours or mine. That said, if you and Ran insist on going through your 40,000+ posts and purging all the personal insults then I obviously can't stop you.  But please just leave me out of it.  Thanks.

-- If Ran wants my opinion and/or input on any sort of editorial board or review board then he should contact me himself.  But Ran already knows my perspective on such things. I worked closely with Ran, Ben, and a few others before he posted my IMO.  I followed Ran's explicit advice about with whom to share my IMO before he posted it. Nonetheless, I'd be glad to discuss it with Ran again, if he sees fit.

-- If Ran and/or Mr. Capers has an issue with Tom MacWood, perhaps either or both should take it up with him directly.  It really is between them and has nothing to do with me.  Besides, you had Ran lock the thread, so we are all stuck with our own doing anyway.   (For what it is worth, I have let Ran and Mr. Capers know what I think about Mr. Capers having been repeatedly injected into these conversations, and I don't think it would serve any productive purpose to get into it further here.)

As I wrote above, I'll try to keep my part of the conversation civil and focused on golf course design.  Most importantly, I'll try to keep moving forward.  No use getting bogged down in bygones.  

So, about those questions, Nos. 1, 2, and 2?  

[Tom MacWood]

If this information does exist I believe it should be immediately turned over to Merion GC, and access to it should be limited to a friendly few who take a vow of secrecy. IMO there is no reason to change course at this point.

[TEPaul]

"But please just leave me out of it.  Thanks."


David Moriarty:

OK, will do. Thanks anyway for responding to #59 and #61.


Tom MacWood:

Interesting idea there but even that may be too dangerous. The information should probably be destroyed; there is no reason to compromise a century old attribution conspiracy at this point.  

[DMoriarty]

Tom, I fear you may be taking that quote of mine well out of its obvious context. To clarify, I was only asking you to leave me out of the process (if there is one) of going back through your 40,000+ posts to purge them of personal insults.  Nothing more.  Here again is what I wrote in context:

". . . I remain of the opinion that we should own our mistakes.  Any damage has long been done, and sanitizing the past record of wrongdoing sure won't teach us anything.   So I'd rather the insulting posts stand as they are, whether yours or mine. That said, if you and Ran insist on going through your 40,000+ posts and purging all the personal insults then I obviously can't stop you.  But please just leave me out of it.  Thanks."

_________________________

You wrote to Tom MacWood: "Interesting idea there but even that may be too dangerous. The information should probably be destroyed; there is no reason to compromise a century old attribution conspiracy at this point." To set the record straight, I have never claimed, argued, or intimated that there was a "century old attribution conspiracy" at Merion.   I wish you'd stop intimating that this has ever been an issue.  
________________________

Now, Tom, will you address my questions?  Here they are again, Nos. 1,2, and 2:

TEPaul,  

Again, thank you for bringing forward this information.  I very much appreciate it, and am sure others do as well.  I hope you don't mind answering a few questions and getting us started in a productive direction . . .

1. Now that you have had about a week to consider the documents, is there anything more you can tell us about them?  

2. Will you be making the documents available for others to review, and if so, how and when?   Or would you rather we contact Drexel directly to obtain the digital copies for ourselves?

2. I’ve reached out to a few of the more obvious repositories at Drexel University, but have thus far had no luck locating any collection at Drexel containing substantial material from or about HG Lloyd.  In fact, I have been told by a few archivists there that no such documents exist at Drexel.   But oftentimes at Universities one hand is unaware of what the other is up to, and given your statement that you got these documents from Drexel, I assume they must have been mistaken.    Can you tell us a bit more about from where within Drexel University these documents came?

Thanks.

David.

[TEPaul]

"Now, Tom, will you address my questions?  Here they are again, Nos. 1,2, and 2:"


David:

For the answer to that question please refer to the last sentence in Post #52.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I fear you may be taking that quote of mine well out of its obvious context. To clarify, I was only asking you to leave me out of the process (if there is one) of going back through your 40,000+ posts to purge them of personal insults.  Nothing more.  Here again is what I wrote in context:"


David:

I do not believe I am taking that quote of yours out of its obvious context. I mentioned to you in Post #52 that I would consider discussing your questions if you fullfilled a condition and in #61 I specificed on your request what the condition was. You declined to fulfill that condition with your response:

". . . I remain of the opinion that we should own our mistakes.  Any damage has long been done, and sanitizing the past record of wrongdoing sure won't teach us anything.   So I'd rather the insulting posts stand as they are, whether yours or mine. That said, if you and Ran insist on going through your 40,000+ posts and purging all the personal insults then I obviously can't stop you.  But please just leave me out of it.  Thanks."



I then thanked you anyway for your response.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, the discourse is down from Itchy and Scratch levels (YAPCAR to the Simpsons) but it still appears to be cat and mouse.......

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't been here long, but this is the second most bizarre thing I have seen since joining. Right behind that crazy guy with the dying rabbit at Pebble.

Stick around, Jason, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

I fear.   

[DMoriarty]

Was it your condition precedent that I go through your 40000+  posts to cull out your personal insults?  If so, that is a rather strange request.  But if not, then you are taking my quote out of context.  Entirely so. 

As I explained,  I want nothing to to with going through your 40,000 posts to cull out all of your personal insults.  Please leave me out of going through your 40000+ posts to cull out the insulting posts. 

Now, as to my questions?

[TEPaul]

Bill McB:


Bizarre perhaps but don't you just love how gloriously civil things have become amongst the heretfore boorish insulters?   

[TEPaul]

“Was it your condition precedent that I go through your 40000+  posts to cull out your personal insults?  If so, that is a rather strange request.  But if not, then you are taking my quote out of context.  Entirely so.  
As I explained,  I want nothing to to with going through your 40,000 posts to cull out all of your personal insults.  Please leave me out of going through your 40000+ posts to cull out the insulting posts.”




David:

No, it was not my condition precedent that you go through 40,000+ of my posts. That was a remark that you made.

The following is what I said to you regarding what you just called a condition precedent:




“Of course you can't begin to consider whether you will agree to fulfill a condition without me telling you what it is. So here's what it is; You and I will agree to remove (delete) from this website any and all posts which either of us feel are personally insulting in any way.”


If you want to go through 40,000+ of my posts to determine which you want to ask me to delete that’s your choice. If you want to go through one or none at all that is your choice as well. However, I would like to spend the time going through yours to decide which ones I would like to ask you to delete. I may even go through my own and decide to delete them. I do not think any of them should be on this website, and it appears Ran Morrissett feels the same but as you mentioned we can certainly let him speak for himself on that.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

We cannot change history by messing with the source material.
 
That said, if Ran is onboard with your plan to purge and cleanse the website of all past "personal insults," and if the two of you want to go through my 3000+ past posts looking for "personal insults" that ought to be purged, then knock yourselves out.  After discussing the list with Ran, I will delete all the posts that Ran thinks I ought to delete.   Ran's website, Ran's rules, Ran's call.  Not yours and not mine.

And speaking of Ran, is he aware that you are refusing to clarify your claims unless I jump through hoops for you? Does Ran know that your reasonable participation is wholly contingent upon my agreement to delete my past posts as YOU see fit?  Surely that is not what Ran wants for HIS website.

What do you say, Tom?  Are you here for frank discussion of golf course architecture, or not? If you are, then let's both cut the games and start trying to live up to Ran's expectations for Ran's website.

Let's start with a simple clarification for your friends who think you have been lying about all of this:  Did you make it up, or do you really have information indicating that Macdonald and Whigam may've been the actual designers?  

[Andrew Mitchell]

Two gentlemen visit Merion finding the need to wear a disguise.  Could it be Messrs MacWood and Moriarty in search of the missing letters?



Reproduced with thanks to Stephanie Wei  http://www.weiunderpar.com/post/the-tale-of-two-philly-courses-majestic-merion-part-1

 

[DMoriarty]

Not me.  I wouldn't wear a phillies cap even in disguise.   It is nice to know that tights are proper attire, though. I will make a note of it for my next round there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()