Patrick,
Wayne finally laid down his cards, and while some of the information from MCC was "pertinent," it certainly doesn't live up to its advanced billing. Mainly, the information confirmed that CBM was not only involved in the entire planning process, he chose the final routing, so if anything Wayne's trip to the sister club made my case all that much stronger. Other than that, there doesn't seem to have been much there there. Of course we may never know what they are still hiding from public purview.
In short, they have been bluffing this entire time. I guess that is why it was/is so important to try and ruin my reputation. Their proxy rebuttal is an absolute joke.
_______________________________________________________
Good evening. I would implore you to stop insulting us by telling others how we should act or think. I am speaking specifically to your request above to write out some sort of comprehensive rebuttal to your IMO piece.
Jeff, You implore all you like, and I'll keep imploring you and anyone else taking unprovoked and baseless pot shots at my essay to back up your spurious claims with a coherent and comprehensive critique, instead of the piecemeal sniping and endless character assassination.
Really, I don't need 1000's of words to make my point, as the former lawyer in you appears to need.
Gee, what a surprise. Another lawyer crack. What's next? One of your didactic lectures about all reasons you dislike me? Glad that none of this is personal for you.
As for me needing 1000's of words to make my point, consider yourself lucky; it could have been 1000s of pages without any apparent point. Besides, my IMO made dozens of points that had never been made before, and so I'd say was pretty brief for considering the depth of the content. Wait until you see Part II.
To date (101 years later) there are absolutely no documentation of CBM being involved in Merion's design between June-Nov, 1910. True of False?
You have on many occasions said "Having contemporaneous documentation is the "gold standard" for historical research. True of False?
The true-or-false approach to historical analysis? No thanks. You well know the whether I have access to such documents is by no means dispositive on this issue. Stop the grandstanding and cheap rhetorical ploys, or at least ask your buddies whether such documents exist. They are the ones playing games with the source material. Besides, aren't you the one who is always lecturing about such things fallacious reasoning, such as this sort of false choice? You should take your wikipedia cut and pastes to heart.
I'll be glad to address this argument and all other of your arguments when you put it all together in a coherent and comprehensive critique of my essay. Good luck with that.
With no documents supporting that position, I have concluded it is false, much like you would probably conclude that one of my, or Mike’s, or Wayne’s, or TePaul’s positions, based on “reasonableness” would be false. You have railed my opinions, but never actually said they were false. You are a clever lawyer, who parses words, and assassinates character with ease, but you are always careful to avoid telling a flat out lies, even as you work around the edges of the truth on many occasions
More fallacious logic, this time a false analogy, and some more personal insults and more lawyer bashing to boot! You are on a roll! Is this more of the part where it isn't personal for you? Amazing how you can admit that I am always honest in my posts, yet you still manage to try to paint me as a liar. Always classy.
As to making a more detailed case, you will recall that in one of myself professed "over the top" posts to you, I also laid out where the foundation of your essay went wrong - you quoted the documents, and in the next PP, you cleverly and purposely changed key words like "approximate acreage" to "exact acreage" among others, and then you were off to the races. So, the rest of your “logic based argument” (as opposed to source based argument) is tainted because the beginning is wrong. Anyone interested can look those posts up.
Are you kidding me? First, although the one to which you refer was rude, this wasn't even close to the over-the-top posts to which I referred. Second, you didn't address a damn thing in my IMO in the post to which you refer. All you did was cut-and-paste a wikipedia entry! I never made any such changes to my logic. If I did, address them in a coherent and comprehensive critique and I'll get back to you.
I don't believe most of the negative attributions and character assassinations you have presented on this site about others.
Of course you don't believe me, but then that is what friends are for.
But it is YOUR character assassinations that are at issue here, not mine. You are the one who CALLED YOUR BUDDY A LIAR, NOT ME. You do recall telling me that
your buddy told you that there were NO Drexel documents, and THAT HE HAD MADE THE ENTIRE THING UP (AND KEPT IT GOING FOR MONTHS) IN ORDER TO TRY AND MAKE A FOOL OF ME? If I recall correctly, you told me this offline as well as online. I am sure I can find a record of it. (By the way, you are not alone. Others of his confidants supposedly said the same thing.)
So isn't it you who is assassinating his character by claiming he admittedly came up with the entire cynical and dishonest scheme to try and make a fool of me. And that he used Ran's website for months to serve his little scheme? And didn't you then come after me for taking him at his word, as if believing a word the man said was an absolutely absurd thing to do? What could be more a character assassination than the man's own friend scoffing at others who were dumb enough to believe him?
So don't try to pin it on me. All I want to do is figure out what happened.
Did he lie to all of us by making up these Drexel documents, as you claim he told you he did?Or did he lie to you about lying to me, so he could sit on pertinent documents rather than confirming my only remaining thesis that yet to be definitively confirmed?Surely you understand why I want to get to the bottom of this.
I understand your frustrations with TePaul, but it is really an insult for you to call me despicable puppet, and also post falsehoods about me to make your point.
I didn't post falsehoods about you. You, on the other hand, claimed that except for the bit about the timing of the Wilson trip about, your buddies had already known everything I uncovered. That is straight out of your buddy's talking points and it is
an outright falsehood. I worked damn hard on that essay and about everything in it was novel information that had never been presented before and certainly wasn't understood by your cronies.
So if you want to recant and set the record straight, then do so. But if you want to stand by your false claim, then while "despicable puppet" is your terminology, it sure seems to fit.
I won't post on Merion related items in this thread again, but did enjoy setting the record straight for the newcomers.
I am sure you did enjoy it. You always enjoy taking shots at me, no matter how unfounded. But you by no means set the record straight, and you are by no means a neutral party in all of this. You are defending your pals, just like you always do.
Hopefully Ran will fix my essay then newcomers can evaluate my claims for themselves. They could even compare it to that long promised point-by-point counterpoint, but no one was ever able to come up with one.