The Origins of Golf in the Shinnecock Hills, A Confused History

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I'm not so sure what this member protocol thing is you mentioned. Moriarty tried to mention that all the time on this website with me and Merion and Myopia. Are you aware of some kind of general "member protocol" thing that researchers and historians need to be aware of before they approach a club, that I'm not aware of?


To me it's more a matter of commonsense and basic respect. If you know as many people in these clubs I talk about this way on here as I do and have for as long as I have, it's not a matter of being a member, but for some reason some on here who have never even been to some of these clubs just seem to assume that. Neither Wayne nor I nor David Goddard, for that matter, is a member of Shinnecock but all three of us certainly have worked with them with their history and architecture in one way or another and whatnot for quite a time. I'm proud of that frankly, and I'm actually getting more than a bit amused that that seems to be eternally frustrating galling to David Moriarty, at least. The same is the case with Merion and Myopia.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I can't speak for any other historian/researcher/writer/author as far as it being a "member protocol" thing, but it is a Phil Young Ethical thing.

I simply think that approaching Shinnecock with the information and then Mr. Goddard before I would approach anyone else privately is proper. Shinnecock because it is their history and Mr. Goddard because evidently he was enabled by Shinnecock to write their official history book and so it is only proper that I send it along to him. By the way, there are a number of other newspaper accounts from the same time period that I didn't post as it just becomes redundant. I will send these along to both Club and Mr. Goddard.

As for Wayne, I am quite certain that he has already seen these articles as I am quite certain that he is following along in this discussion. 

[TEPaul]

Phil:

You do whatever you think best about sending on newspaper articles to Shinnecock or Goddard or whatever. I would remind you however, that if they are just about Dunn coming to Shinnecock in 1893 instead of 1894 as Goddard mentioned in his book, that may have some passing interest to Goddard and Shinnecock but it would not really change the course of events with Davis creating the original nine holes in 1891 for men and perhaps a short course for women and then adding three more holes to make the original twelve in 1892 and to have also perhaps moved the woman's course north of the clubhouse in 1892 before leaving Shinnecock to go design the first course for Newport GC.

And I'm wondering if you are aware, at this point, what it was and when and how that messed up the story of that particular series of events with those two early Shinnecock architects. Goddard dealt with all that too in his 1999 book. If you want to get involved in Shinnecock's history I would suggest when you send those newspaper articles to Goddard or Shinnecock you also ask either of them if they would let you see Goddard's 1999 history book. 

[DMoriarty]

Every time TEPaul writes out his supposed 'Goddard version' of Shinnecock's history, he changes it slightly.  Naturally.

And isn't it fascinating how TEPaul insisted over and over that Dunn was not the pro at Shinnecock in 1893 and was not even in the country in 1893, and twice listed this as one of the key points where Goddard viewed the history differently, yet now that even he must realize this is obviously wrong, suddenly it is of no importance whatsoever?

________________________

Let's return to Patrick Mucci's reasonable request that we examine the "UNDERLYING EVIDENCE."

1. TEPaul claimed that Dunn was not the professional at Shinnecock in 1893, and was not even in the country until 1894.   There are numerous contemporaneous reports that Dunn was in fact the professional at Shinnecock for the 1893 season.  Here are just a few:
-  On May 27, 1893, the NYTimes reported that  “Mr. Dum [sic] of the Biarritz Golf Club” had been engaged by Shinnecock as a green keeper, and that he was also an experienced teacher, and clubmaker.
-  On July 9, 1893, the NYTimes reported that Dunn was the greenkeeper and teacher at Shinnecock, and that the links had been lengthened that year and several hazards put on the links.  
-  On July 22, 1893, the Newport Mercury, reported: "A game of golf will be played on the Golf coub grounds Monday afternoon between Mr. William Dunn of the Shinnecock Club, Southampton, L.I. and Mr. William F Davis of the Newport Club."

TEPaul: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DUNN WAS NOT THE PROFESSIONAL AT SHINNECOCK IN 1893?

2.  While his claim is a bit wishy-washy, TEPaul concludes that W.D. Davis was the professional at Shinnecock in 1892, and that he added three holes to the nine hole golf course that year and had "perhaps" built a women's course in 1891 and that this course was a mile long, and "perhaps" Davis moved built a different women's course in 1892, and "perhaps" Davis also made changes the nine hole course in 1892.
-   According to the NY Evening Post, July 18, 1892,  Shinnecock hired John Cuthbert, of St. Andrews, to act as their golf professional for the summer of 1892.
-   According to the "Gotham Gossip" column, June 15, 1892, Shinnecock's course was still nine-holes in 1892, with identical hole distances as the course in 1891:
"In Scotland there are generally eighteen of these greens, the links being spread over from three to four miles.  At Shinnecock there are nine putting greens and the links extend over about two miles. . . . The exact measurement of the several links is 258, 187, 395, 275, 412, 297, 265, 228, and 242 yards respectively.   There are a separate links for women which extend about a mile, the course, naturally, being less difficult than that for the men."

TEPaul:  
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DAVIS WAS SHINNECOCK'S PROFESSIONAL IN 1892?
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DAVIS ADDED THREE HOLES IN 1892? AND "PERHAPS" ALTERED THE NINE HOLE COURSE IN 1892? AND PERHAPS MOVED THE WOMEN'S COURSE IN 1892?
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DAVIS "PERHAPS" DESIGNED A WOMEN'S COURSE IN 1891?
- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS WOMEN'S COURSE WAS "PERHAPS" A MILE LONG IN 1891?

3.  TEPaul claimed that Dunn extended Shinnecock's course in 1894.   There are multiple reports that Dunn extended the course to 18 holes in the spring of 1895.

TEPaul, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DUNN EXTENDED SHINNECOCK'S COURSE TO 18 HOLES IN 1894?

4.  TEPaul claimed that Davis designed Newport's course in 1892.   There are multiple reports that the club in Newport was created in January, 1893, and that the course  was laid out in 1893.   For example, on January 29, 1893, the New York Herald announced, "Newport to Have a Golf Club" and reported that they would golf on leased land and that, "A professional golf player from Montreal has been engaged to take charge of the grounds and instruct the members."  Likewise, in mid-April 1893, multiple papers announced that land had been leased on Ocean Avenue, and that the club would at once make "improvements" necessary for the game.  

TEPaul, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING YOUR CLAIM THAT DUNN EXTENDED SHINNECOCK'S COURSE TO 18 HOLES IN 1894?

There is more, but that should be a good start.  

TEPaul, can you please explain the UNDERLYING EVIDENCE supporting these claims?   Because so far as I can tell, the underlying evidence is to the contrary.

   And please do not answer that MR. Goddard's book is your underlying evidence, because that only begs the question as to his underlying evidence.

_______________________________________

I don't know Mr. Goddard except by reputation, but reading what TEPaul wrote above, I feel the need to come to his defense.  TEPaul, it an insult to Mr. Goddard and all legitimate researchers when you place yourself and Wayne in his category.  Surely Mr. Goddard doesn't rely totally on another's club history for his research, and surely he has no need to pass off phony quotes as real, or to manipulate, control, and obfuscate the source material for petty and personal reasons.  

[TEPaul]

Yes, good point;

Pat, what are those two versions you mentioned in your #57 that I asked you about in #59?


David Moriarty:

Judging from your posts to me on this thread, particularly your last one, it appears you've become a bit more than a little hysterical. Why is that? I've told you and everyone else on this thread that my source of the information I've put on here on Shinnecock's Davis/Dunn architectural history is David Goddard's book on Shinnecock's history, "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" (1999).

If you have some problem with what I've said, which it seems from your hysterical posts on here that you might, then maybe you should explain what that problem is and I'll try to clear it up for you. But if it is just that it is me who is explaining it to you, then what you should probably do is try to find someone else who has Goddard's book and has read it to explain it to you or else get it yourself and read it carefully, including its preface (its acknowledgements that mentions some of his source material) and its footnotes, and then you can explain your version of it and what it says to everyone else on this thread and what you think any differences are in it compared to "your version" of Shinnecock's history.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

If you don't know any good psychiatrists out there in Southern California I'm pretty sure I could help you out or that someone on here could. I'm not too sure what your problem is on here, particularly recently and with all your repetitiveness and all this "Internet capitalized textual screaming", but I think one of those creative SoCal shrinks might be able to help you out in that vein.

[Keith OHalloran]

TEPaul,
Can you clarify what Wayne Morrison's involvement is for me please? You have mentioned Mr. Goddard's book on the history of the club and have stated that it is very complete. I believe that you also stated that, since your involvement, Mr. Goddard has been the historian primarliy for the Flynn course, which I assume is after 1931. My question is, what is Wayne Morrison's involvement, and why would Mr. Young show his research to Mr. Morisson before Mr. Goddard and Shinnecock?
Thanks

[TEPaul]

Keith:

I'm sorry but the way this thread has gone, particularly recently with Moriarty's hysterics, I would rather not explain that on this thread, other than to say that it's been no secret on here over the years that Wayne and I have consulted with the club on restoration items and such on the Flynn course in the last decade or a bit less. Other than that I'd rather not comment about that, other than to say that Phil Young can do whatever he wants with Shinnecock and any articles he may have, as far as I'm concerned, but I really do feel he showed some bad judgement to say what he did on this thread today about Wayne or me or what he would prefer to do about that. I think something like that does not belong on this DG. Maybe in a private email but not on this DG. Phil did ask me something along those lines about Myopia recently but at least he did it in an email just to me. That he would put what he did no here about that today makes me lose a certain amount of respect for Phil Young as a fellow researcher/writer with some of these clubs.

Sorry, Keith; I hope you understand.

Thanks

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I'm sorry that you have "lost some respect for me" but let me remind you that it was YOU in your post #69 who suggested that I contact Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard and that I didn't mention Wayne at all until YOU told me that I should contact him first.

If anything, I have shown a great deal of respect to you and all involved in this thread. Frankly, David is correct. There has been agreat deal of information preoduced that calls into question what you have stated to be in Mr. Goddards book. As we (David and myself) do not have copies of it we must rely soley upon what you have stated it contains within its pages. Based SOLELY upon what YOU have written, I have produced a number of contemporaneous newspaper accounts that clearly disagree with your statements. In what possible way has that been a mistreatment of you and Wayne? If anyone has shown "bad judgement" in this area it is YOU because YOU were the one who made all of those original mentions. I simply commented as to what YOU stated.

I'm sorry, but despite the work that you and Wayne have done on behalf of Shinnecock, the information is theirs and Mr. Goddard's since he wrote the book. To believe  that you and Wayne have a priority on recieving it before either of them do is incorrect. It is YOU, by your very act of insisting on that, who is showing disrespect to Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard.

What is so difficult about your having seen all of these articles and simply acknowledging that it provides a moments pause and that another examination of the history and what it is based upon may be in order? Also, what is the harm in your making an introduction for me to either Shinnecock and/or Mr. Goddard on this? If you had a question about a Tilly club that you felt I couldn't answer I would have no problem at all in making an introduction for you. The fact is that I have actually done that very thing for several people in the past.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I'm sorry that you have "lost some respect for me" but let me remind you that it was YOU in your post #69 who suggested that I contact Shinnecock and Mr. Goddard and that I didn't mention Wayne at all until YOU told me that I should contact him first."


Phil:

Well, thank you for that. I certainly accept that and perhaps I shouldn't have said a thing about any relationship that Wayne Morrison and I have had with Shinnecock or Goddard or any of it. I guess I said that because I just really do feel that anyone on this website that goes about questioning the histories of these clubs as MacWood and Moriarty have done for years should just try to establish a relationship with these clubs before they do that on here. Obviously the reason I say that is I just can't understand why they wouldn't try to do that if they say they are as interested in these clubs' histories as they say they are. Why should they just put this kind of speculative stuff on here with a few newspaper articles and then if someone like me questions them or corrects them with the history of a club from its own records they demand I hand over private club material to them or not be allowed to answer or respond on here.

I know you understand this Phil because we have talked about it at length and you seem to agree with me because your experiences with the clubs you know and study have been somewhat the same as mine that way. I feel that with anyone, even you, if you may not know a club like Shinnecock. Just go to the people on here that you know have relationships and collaborate with them with the clubs is my philosophy.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I see a lot of rewrites in Messrs. Paul & Morrison's future. 

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Could you explain why you are so disgusted by these new discoveries? I'm having a hard time understanding your underlying philosophy. This new information fascinates me, I don't understand why you react so negatively. Is it a case of objecting to all research beyond club records? I don't know any competent historical researcher who would limit his search to one source.

Are there certain clubs, like Merion, Shinnecock, and Myopia, you feel should be off limits because of their reputation or perhaps some connection you may have (or would like to believe you have), or are you just uncomfortable with all new discoveries. I don't recall you reacting negatively when new information was brought to light with White Bear Yacht, SFGC, Pocono Manor, Olympia Fields, and all the Mackenzie courses Neil Crafter & Co have uncovered.

Is it personal, in other words if your mortal enemies Moriarty or MacWood are making the discoveries you take particular offense? Is there some kind of insecurity at work here, realizing you will never be able to make similar discoveries because of your limited research abilities. I'm not a psychologist though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I agree with your friends who tell you have plenty to do with architecture. Your not tied down to a job, you don't have a family to worry about, you are reasonably intelligent, you have excellent contacts and I'm guessing financially sound. You should be running circles around all of us when it comes to research and uncovering what really happened in the history of golf architecture. Instead you seem to have your head buried in the sand fighting everyone who is doing what you should be doing.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,
Can you clarify what Wayne Morrison's involvement is for me please? You have mentioned Mr. Goddard's book on the history of the club and have stated that it is very complete. I believe that you also stated that, since your involvement, Mr. Goddard has been the historian primarliy for the Flynn course, which I assume is after 1931. My question is, what is Wayne Morrison's involvement, and why would Mr. Young show his research to Mr. Morisson before Mr. Goddard and Shinnecock?
Thanks

I think these are very good questions. When I first posted this thread, TEPaul informed me in no uncertain terms that I should have contacted him and Wayne prior to posting what I did.  Nothing about the Club or Mr. Goddard; rather I needed to have contacted Wayne and TEPaul.  Wayne and TEPaul?    

Why on earth should any of us have to contact Wayne and TEPaul before posting on Shinnecock?   (Indeed, why should any of us have to contact anyone of these clubs about events that happened almost 120 years ago?)  I just can't get over the arrogance of the demand, especially given that Wayne and TEPaul know very little about the origins.   The information TEPaul gave me less than a month ago was far from correct.      As for Wayne, here he is on the subject from a thread in 2006:
. . .
Willie Davis arrived in Southampton in 1891 and laid out the first 12 holes at Shinnecock Hills.  The holes were completed in a relatively short time and were fascinating examples of the geometric era.  Sometime later the course was becoming congested and a nine hole course, the Red Course was laid out for the ladies.  This is probably the origin of the color red for most forward tees.  After a short time, the two course concept was abandoned and a single 18-hole layout was put into play around 1893.  

Willie Dunn came to town in 1895 and did some redesign work, lengthening the course to over 5000 yards. . . .

Interesting version, one consistent with what TEPaul told me last month, but a version not supported by the facts with which I am familiar.  I wonder where he got this information?  One would think that such an expert on Shinnecock who was working with Goddard would have been familiar with Goddard's account, but this version is different than what TEPaul is now claiming.

TEPaul,  where did you get your information for the version you told me last month?   And why is your version and Wayne's version different that what you have represented as Goddard's version?  

AND WHY DID YOU INFORM ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE CONTACTED YOU AND WAYNE BEFORE POSTING?

DOES SHINNECOCK KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE HOLDING YOURSELVES OUT AS SHINNECOCK'S REPRESENTATIVES AND INSISTING THAT THOSE INTERESTED IN ITS HISTORY COME TO YOU TWO FIRST?

TEPaul, I know you two have pulled this gatekeeper garbage at Merion, but at least Wayne is a member there.  It seems pretty arrogant and presumptuous to appoint yourselves as the gatekeepers at clubs where you don't even belong.
_______________________________

And TEPaul, what of my questions above?  

Where are the underlying facts?  

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Could you explain why you are so disgusted by these new discoveries?"


Tom MacWood:

I suppose the only way to try to proceed intelligently on threads or discussions like this one is to take it in very small bites. That's why I only quoted the above! What new discoveries are you speaking about and where have I said I was disgusted with any of them if in fact they even exist?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

If you are out there, please help us out here.  You suggested that we present the evidence underlying our claims, and that seemed a reasonably way to proceed.  So far as I can tell, TEPaul has not presented anything.

Can you see why these conversations bog down?  

Can you explain to your pal why generally referencing someone else's history does not advance the conversation?

[TEPaul]

I seem to have been completely pummelled by endless questions from Tom MacWood and David Moriarty about all kinds of things that they claim I said, many of them which I never have said. How in the world does anyone on here expect that I should keep up with them or even expect that I could? To even try to do that is overwhelming and so if anyone would actually like to speak to me about it I will put my telephone # on here for a time.

Feel free to call me about any of this before my fingers fall off typing.  

Barn/Office=610-353-0568

If no one bothers to call I cannot help but think they don't really care about any of this or getting to the bottom of the history of Shinnecock or it's present presentation of it by David Goddard.

PS:
I will put what I consider to be a truly revelatory note on here-----eg I would absolutely not expect either Moriarty or MacWood to ever even DARE to call me about any of this! If they don't what do you suspect THAT means???  

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
Could you explain why you are so disgusted by these new discoveries?"


Tom MacWood:

I suppose the only way to try to proceed intelligently on threads or discussions like this one is to take it in very small bites. That's why I only quoted the above! What new discoveries are you speaking about and where have I said I was disgusted with any of them if in fact they even exist?

You react as if you are disgusted. Campbell's involvement at Myopia in 1894 and 1896, Wilson not going abroad in 1910, and now the new info regarding Shinnecock...not to mention Crump's suicide and Flynn's role at Hartwellville.

[DMoriarty]

So if I don't call TEPaul at his command, then it means that "I don't really care about any of this or getting to the bottom of the history of Shinnecock" . . . ?  TEPaul's delusions of grandeur seem to be on the uptick.

TEPaul,

For the record, I will not call you because I like to have a record of our conversations.  That way that you cannot misrepresent them as you have in the past (see the Campbell thread, for example.)   Also, I think others would be interested in your answers to the questions.  I would think they might be interested in your refusal to answer as well.

But that is a pretty funny notion about you, with your tens of thousands of posts, not being able to manage to answer a few reasonable questions.  

Just provide your evidence for the various claims you have made.  And explain why you insisted I should have called you before posting. I think we are all curious as to the answers.

Thanks.  

[Steve Lang]

  TEP its late and I'm going to bed so I won't call, but I am interested in how historians get confused..

Regards from the 30th parallel

[Mike Cirba]

Is the Goddard book only available to members?

Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history?

Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy? 

Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote?   Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there?

Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves?  Why do we find that so difficult? 

Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks...

[TEPaul]

"Is the Goddard book only available to members?"


MikeC:

I don't know about that. Goddard calls it a book but it could be in loose-left form with only a few copies printed to date.


"Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history?"

That's a good question! I sure do doubt Moriarty who started this thread has. He doesn't really contact clubs before he tells them and the world on the Internet that he knows better than they do why their histories are wrong. The same seems to go for that Tom MacWood who seems to me to be about as dumb as a stump!

"Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy?"


That to me is the ultimate question on this website and on threads like this one. I'm glad you asked it again because I sure have. What is your feeling about it MichaelC?  


"Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote?   Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there?"


You don't need me if anyone else on here had it or bothered to get it. They apparently haven't and my question is----why is that?



"Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves?  Why do we find that so difficult?"

That! THAT!!! is the real question on here and I have been asking it for years!!! Why are so few, to none on here, providing an answer to that question?  

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

I can only answer for myself:

Is the Goddard book only available to members? I have no ides.

Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history? As my questions on this just came up in the past two days I felt that it would be improper as a stranger to reach out to both club and Mr. Goddard until after they passed. I intend on doing so.

Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy?  The availability of it will be among my first questions.

Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote?   Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there? If one doesn't have the book and the questions arise BECAUSE Tom Paul has stated what is in the book without even quoting from it, it seems only natural to ask him to do so. I can't answer for David's critical analysis, but mine began after I read David's and felt that his presentation showed signs of validity. This was followed by Tom Paul criticizing his theory by stating about Goddard's book. That increased my interest. I then did a simple search for contemporaneous newspaper articles that dealt with several of the issues and was quite surprised how they both disagreed with what Tom Paul said that Goddard's book contained and agreed with much of what David had conjectured. So, no, in this case, at least for me, the "critical analysis" would not have started with the club.

Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves?  Why do we find that so difficult? I have no aversion. What is Tom Paul's aversion for others doing so since he insisted that I FIRST contact he and Wayne who, despite the work they may have done for the club, are not members of ot nor do they speak for Mr. Goddard.

Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks... Mike, I honestly think that this train wreck can be put at Tom's feet.

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

As you know, I do a lot of newspaper and periodical research myself and I guess in these situations I ask myself what I would do if I found something conflicting a known course/club history, or what I would like to see done if I was a member or resident historian out of simple respect and consideration.

For what it's worth, I think the approach you took in the case of SFGC is the right way to do things. Sean Tully also had similar good judgment and discretion in dealing with the same club.

Unless we here on GCA see ourselves as sort of the "National Enquirer", or perhaps more appropriately, the combo of "News of the World" and WikiLeaks, then I think we'll get a lot better, more accurate, and less contentious information by including the clubs themselves in this process, rather than setting up some de facto adversarial relationship. 

[DMoriarty]

Is the Goddard book only available to members?

I have no idea.  

Has anyone contacted the author if they felt/feel there are errors/omissions in his version of the club history?

I've never claimed anything about his book.  How could I when I haven't even read it?   My goal wasn't to debate another club history.

Why wouldn't anyone seriously interested in the club history have managed to procure a copy?  

Because I am capable of figuring it myself using contemporaneous information.

Why do we need Tom Paul to tell us what Goddard wrote?

We don't.  TEPaul inserted himself and Goddard into this conversation, and has insisted on trying to make this about Goddard.  (And you are playing along like any good lapdog would.)   It isn't about Goddard.  It is about what happened at Shinnecock.   If TEPaul wants to make claims about what happened at Shinnecock (whether from Goddard or his own imagination) he should back the claims.

Wouldn't any critical analysis of the club history start there?  

I've made no critical analysis of Goddard's version of the history.  My critical analysis is of what actually happened, compared to what Parrish, Dunn, and Whitten claimed happened.   It is all above if you are interested.  
  
Why this seeming aversion to dealing with the clubs themselves?  Why do we find that so difficult?  Because there is no need to bother them with something as trivial as this.   Because it is very unlikely that many there even give a damn.  Because they haven't asked for my opinion.  Because I value my independence, and getting involved with a club could potentially threaten that.  Because I am not a member of their club.   Because this just wasn't that big a deal to me.   Because I abhor the politics that necessarily accompany such dealings.  Because no one owns history.   Because it is a matter of general interest.  And a host of other reasons.  

Just wondering as another trainwreck heads off the tracks...

If there is a trainwreck it is only because your mentor (and now you) are sabotaging the tracks.  

I found out some interesting information and so I thought I'd share it.  I don't have to answer to you, TEPaul, or any other self-annointed guardian of history to post here.  
_________________________________
Now Mike Cirba, why don't you ask yourself the same questions for all of the clubs you have posted about over the years.

How about all your various bogus theories about NGLA's history which directly contradict their understanding of their own history? Did you go to NGLA before you posted those? If not, then why the double standard?
____________________________

TEPaul,

I see you have time to answer questions in writing.    Great.  So how about some answers?

[TEPaul]

"Unless we here on GCA see ourselves as sort of the "National Enquirer", or perhaps more appropriately, the combo of "News of the World" and WikiLeaks, then I think we'll get a lot better, more accurate, and less contentious information by including the clubs themselves in this process, rather than setting up some de facto adversarial relationship."


Mike Cirba:

That's a nice statement and it sounds good and is good unless of course you and others don't back it up with some concrete actions on here. So what do you plan to recommend and do on that score?

THAT is a serious question, by the way, and one not to be avoided or ignored or rationalized away on here by anyone; and if anyone participating in this stuff seriously tries to avoid it, ignore it or rationalize it away then my suggestion is for you and anyone else on here who wants to be serious with these subjects on here such as Merion, Myopia and Shinnecock et al to go after them with both barrels. I don't have much doubt that you know who I'm speaking of so the question is do you and the rest have the guts to do that on here?