Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What my #1475 has to do with #1474 is that he has asked that question many times and he has been given the answer but he just ignores it or disagrees with it and keeps asking the same question over and over again. We who are familiar with Philadelphia and Cobbs Creek have all answered his question before.

If you think you can do better with answering his question then by all means give it a shot!

Furthermore, Patrick, the only real nonsequitor on this website's DG is you!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are you ignoring the answer/s that were previously provided, ....according to TE ?

Or, do you disagree with the answers previously provided, .........according to TE ?

If you disagree, exactly how do your opinions differ ?

And what's the basis for your disagreement ?

[TEPaul]

The following is additional information from Mike Cirba including his oft-repeated answer to Tom MacWood's questioning of Crump's involvement in the design of Cobbs Creek: This is Mike Cirba's documented answer. If MacWood doesn't accept it or interprets it differently, so what? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and interpretation of these kinds of things-----although Mike Cirba has put in a whole lot more time and detailed research into the history of Cobbs Creek than Tom MacWood has or ever will.





Tom MacWood is confusing committees here between the 1) Committee responsible for locating a site for the golf course, 2) The Committee responsible for creating a routing, and 3) The Committee responsible for overseeing construction..   I don't have much time right now but here's a good example.
 
The January 31, 1915 William Evans article he cites as proof that only Wilson, Klauder, and Smith designed the course is once again an erroneous interpretation of what the article says.   If you read carefully, you'll see that by this time the routing was complete, as evidenced by Evans' mention of the six holes (greens actually) located along the creek.
 
Later, he mentions that Wilson, Klauder, and Smith have been appointed to work with the Park Commission to lay out the course (meaning to construct it).
 
This is also why he later misinterprets the congratulatory message of January 1916, a year later, that mentions only Wilson, Smith, and Klauder (along with Winthrop Sargent, who I believe was chairman of the Green Committee at Merion at that time, and who likely gave permission for the use of William Flynn as the lead shaper) after the construction has been completed and the growing in period had been commenced.
 
Actually, I believe Tom misinterprets these articles is because he cannot open his closed mind on these issues around Philadelphia golf, so any evidence outside his predeterminations either needs to be ignored, claimed to be erroneous, or misinterpreted.   That again is not a personal attack against Tom who I believe is a really good researcher, but an observation based on long experience discussing these matters with him.
 

 
Thanks again,
Mike

[TEPaul]

At this point, it might be very worthwhile historically to mention something which I do not believe has ever been mentioned before in the years long discussions and debates on here about Merion and Cobbs Creek.

In both cases the various committee or association that engineered the site search/selection and move of the original MCC course from Haverford to Ardmore that resulted in the creation of Merion East, and the site search/selection and creation of Cobbs Creek were both chaired by the same man---Robert Lesley!

Robert Lesley created the august Lesley Cup in 1905 (still in existence today) played annually between Philadelphia, New York and Boston that eventually became an annual match/cup between Pennsylvania, New York, Massachussets and Quebec. Lesley served on the board of MCC; he was the chairman of the site selection committee for the move of MCC's course to Ardmore; he also served as MCC's Green (Golf) chairman and he was the president of the Golf Association of Philadelphia for fifteen years and during the creation of Cobbs Creek. As GAP's president he appointed the committees that located and designed Cobbs Creek. He may've appointed the committee that designed Merion when the site was approved for Merion East.

Isn't it interesting he did all that but never actually served on the committees himself that actually designed both Merion East and West and Cobbs Creek? I suppose he felt he had at his immediate disposal some pretty special architectural talent that would work in collaboration with one another. The other interesting aspect is none of that architectural talent cost a dime---eg they were all so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architecturally and organizationally! 

[DMoriarty]

  

Mike wrote:

Your overall question, however, seems to suggest that before going forward to city officials, the management company, local golf authorities, etc., I somehow needed to fully document, footnote, cross-reference, and somehow substantiate under cross-examination every one of hundreds of articles over a century of history of the efforts around creating public golf and the course at Cobb's Creek to a standard admissible under a court of law.

I have no problem with the scrapbook portion of Mike's work, except that most of the dates and sources are not labeled.  But as Mike acknowledges, most readers will never get to the clippings but will instead focus on Mike's analysis and conclusions, and his presentation of those conclusions.  In my mind these sections really ought to be accurate and unexaggerated and properly sourced, and when he makes claims as fact he needs to back back them up, and not overstate or exaggerate those claims.  This is so whether one clip or a thousand clipings follow.

In other words, it is not the clippings, it is what Mike does with them.   That is why I objected to (and still object to) him telling the interesting regular golfer that Cobb's was "known as" the best public in the country.  He knows as well as I do that there was no single course "known as the best."   It is also why I object to many other claims and intimations in the work, and why I don't believe Mike's unsupported busiest course in the nation claim is the "biggest issue" in the work. It is just a single issue on which I focused because I hoped the factual nature of the claim would make it non-controversial.  

The larger issue is one of overselling the history of the course by exaggerating facts (such as this one and others) as well as the extent of the involvement of some of the supposed players in the project.  I brought up Carr not because I think he should be included and covered for page after page like the others-- so far as I can tell by the clippings, there is little suggesting Carr had much to do with the project!  I brought up Carr because others similarly situated to Carr are treated as if they were major players driving the project or design, and frankly I don't think the record supports this. And so disagree with Mike about the questions some have about some of the parties involved, and I don't think those questions can be answered reposting sections or clippings of the work on here.  We've seen the clippings and explanations, but in my mind they don't address all of the questions being raised.  

For another example, other than the mention in the Thomas book about Thomas having learned from Wilson at Merion and the "Philadelphia municipal" is there any contemporaneous evidence that Thomas had anything to do with Cobb's?   I know Geoff speculates about Thomas having spent time out on those projects, but he seems to be going on the same quote as Mike.   Is there anything other than this quote?  Because by Mike's logic, we should conclude that Thomas was involved in the design of Merion as well.  Better yet we should conclude that Wilson was involved in the design of NGLA because Wilson wrote that learned a lot from CBM while visiting NGLA!  Such reasoning would be stretched beyond breaking.  
____________________________________________________________________

One particular article did catch my eye years ago as being somehow apropos of these conversations about things relating to Philadelphia golf, except that it pits two local landmarks against each other.   It is covered in Mike's work, but again the way he covered it gave me chuckle for reasons that I think will be obvious.   Apparently to support his beliefs about the quality and difficult of Cobb's, Mike cites  "the fact that Cobb's Creek was compared to the famed Pine Valley in terms of challenge."   On it's face this sounds like a pretty impressive "fact," but when one looks at the actual supporting articles, one sees that, while the comparison was made, it was a comparison made by the Professional at Cobb's Creek, and was supported by a handful of Cobb's creek regulars!   In short, it seems a rather stretched to use use the local pride of the pro and a some of the locals to support the notion that Cobb's Creek actually compared to Pine Valley.  At least a golf writer known as "Peter Putter" thought so  in March of 1919 when the issue first came up . . .

   Horace Gamble, the professional at Cobb's Creek municipal course, comes out with the startling statement that in natural configuration the public links here is a fifty-fifty proposition with the famous Pine Valley Course. . . .
    . . . .When such experts as Chick Evans, Francis Quimet and Jim Barnes say it is the finest course in the country, the remarks of the local pro are to be taken with a grain of salt.
    As a matter of fact, Cobb's Creek has not a single hole that will compare with the New Jersey course.  In natural configuration or in any other way, the Cobb's Creek course does not begin to hold a candle to the Jersey links.  The best holes at Cobb's are at the water holes, and half the time the greens there, because they are surrounded by trees which prevent the grass from growing, are out of commission most of the time.
     It is an excellent municipal course, probably among the best in the country, but that lets it out. It is not to be mentioned in the same breath that will always stand as a memorial to the late George A. Crump. . . .  

Now in the dispute itself Mr. Gamble got plenty of support from his local golfers and Gamble's points were clarified somewhat in an article Mike includes.  Nonetheless, and drawing no conclusion about the underlying disputes, I tend to agree with Mr. "Putter's" general sentiment that such local puffery has to be taken with a grain of salt in these matters.




___________________
As an aside . . . Mike mentions Rancho Park.  While Rancho Park in Los Angeles dates from early 1920's it did not become a municipal course until much later, when the city obtained the land and the course was redesigned to make room for other park facilities.  The Los Angeles courses mentioned in those articles were Wilson and Harding at Griffith Park.  These courses actually were designed by George Thomas, and constructed by Billy Bell in the early 1920s.  They were considered to be excellent courses, hosted important PGA tour events and professional women's events, etc.  Both courses still exist although parts were sacrificed to a freeway expansion.  

Those courses were praised similarly to the way Cobb's was praised, but if I were to claim that these courses were "known as the best" public courses in the country I would be exaggerating. No single course was known as such.   That said, if I recall correctly, years ago Geoff Shackelford made a solid case that they were worthy of a restoration effort.

[DMoriarty]

It might be worth clarifying that "Peter Putter," saw Pine Valley as a memorial to George Crump, not Cobb's Creek.  This is consistent with everything I have read about Crump.  He was widely connected with Pine Valley, but I don't recall ever seeing him connected to Cobb's except that he served on the discussed committee(s.)

That is why it seems so strange that Cobb's is now being billed as if it were somehow a second project with which Crump was significantly involved.   Is there anything else indicating significant involvement other than his committee appointment?  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:


I note with great interest many of the points you just made in your Post #s 1481 and 1482.

I don't think any of us have any problems with legitimate questions about a number of things people who write essays and articles and books on golf architecture say.

I would also hope that if anyone, including yourself, can claim if they have a legitimate interest in these subjects, they have a right to question what writers say and to hopefully expect thoughtful and honest answers from those writers and others who have collaborated with those writers.

I also note that in the last day or so you mentioned Hugh Wilson and his trip abroad for Merion, apparently in some attempt on your part to draw an analogy with something on this thread on Cobbs Creek. I am delighted that you did mention Hugh Wilson and Merion recently on this thread as I think there truly are some good and applicable analogies at play here in what writers write, as well as specifically what has been written about Cobbs Creek by Mike Cirba and about Merion by you.

Consequently, since you have made your feelings known on here about your questions and that you logically expect thoughtful and honest answers to your questions, would you agree to the very same process on what you have written about Merion East? And if not, why not?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

I'm very sorry but I'm just not interested in continuing to pursue this very same Cobbs Creek/Crump question and point of yours that I view as truly unecessary and irrelevant hair-splitting. Obviously you have your own unique way of interpreting historical material and as you know I have always felt although you seem to be a very good raw researcher, you are just not a good historical analyst. I think your interpretation and suggestion on HH Barker designing Merion East is pretty much where and when you basically lost all credibilty on here with just about everyone as a competent historical golf architecture analyst.

No problem at all that you or anyone else have their own opinions and interpretations on some of these issues but to me trying to explain these things to you over and over again is just a waste of time.

I told you back in Feb. 2003 when you found a few articles on Macdonald and Merion that prompted you to start a thread ("Re: Macdonald and Merion?") on it in which you asked us to tell you (essentally hole by hole) who specifically did what on that golf course---that we do not know those kinds of architectural details because those things were just not recorded in detail----frankly they never really are on golf architecture projects. I even explained to you that you should spend a couple of weeks on a routing and design project and you would learn this for yourself first-hand. I've done that about a dozen times over the years on routing and design phases of projects and if there are a number of people out there contributing and collaborating, at the end of the day even they couldn't tell anyone whose idea everything was. What's the point anyway? The idea out there is to collaborate and come to some consensus opinion on what works with anything. After that there is usually some kind of agreement, the things gets approved and they all go on to something else.

Why you can't understand that is beyond me other than the fact that you just have never experienced it or seen it first-hand.

You should have listened then but apparently you never did or never will, and so your irrelevant questions in that vein seem to just go on and on and on.

I do apologize to you if you feel what I have said here is in some way personal or a personal criticism of you. I do not intend it to be that and I just don't look at it that way at all. This is only about golf course architecture and HOW our experiences with it, and particularly on the ground with golf architecture projects, very much tend to inform and educate us to the ways it always goes out there, both back then, today, and probably into the future as well.

Thats too bad, but as one of the biggest supporters of the Philadelphia Mythology I can see why you would feel that way. I mean anyone who still believes Merion hired an untested, inexperienced insurance salesman; that Crump died of a tooth ache; and that a 19 year old tennis pro designed Heartwellville obviously has a very interesting way of looking at history. And I almost forgot your belief that the world famous CC was designed by Wilson, Crump, Smith, Klauder, Meehan, Flynn, Thomas, Travis and Sayers in some massive collaboration in the highly collaborative think tank known as the Philadelphia School of Collaboratory Study with its ethos of unbridled collaboration. This whole thread has been a useful exercise illustrating how these local myths get started and promoted, and I still say you should add Tilly and make it an even ten.

[TEPaul]

"Thats too bad, but as one of the biggest supporters of the Philadelphia Mythology I can see why you would feel that way. I mean anyone who still believes Merion hired an untested, inexperienced insurance salesman; that Crump died of a tooth ache; and that a 19 year old tennis pro designed Heartwellville obviously has a very interesting way of looking at history. And I almost forgot your belief that the world famous CC was designed by Wilson, Crump, Smith, Klauder, Meehan, Flynn, Thomas, Travis and Sayers in some massive collaboration in the highly collaborative think tank known as the Philadelphia School of Collaboratory Study, with its ethos and history of unprecedented collaboration. This whole thread has been a useful exercise illustrating how these local myths get started and promoted, and I still say you should add Tilly and make it an even ten.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:04:50 PM by Tom MacWood »"




Tom:

Thank you for that statement above. I think it is a succinct but nonetheless quite comprehensive summation of your decade long approach to Philadelphia and a number of its significant courses, architecture and architects including Hugh Wilson, William Flynn, George Crump, Merion, Pine Valley and Cobbs Creek. I think your remarks should be noted in the archives of all those clubs as well as perhaps the Golf Association of Philadelphia. We should label it; "The History of Philadelphia Golf Architecture Is Largely Mythology" by Tom MacWood.

[Tom MacWood]

I'm sorry but you have to admit over the years you, and some others, have tried to get us to believe some pretty wacky ideas.

[JESII]

I'm sorry but you have to admit over the years you, and some others, have tried to get us to believe some pretty wacky ideas.

Not disagreeing with you but the "Barker designed Merion" idea is the topper for me...

[TEPaul]

"I'm sorry but you have to admit over the years you, and some others, have tried to get us to believe some pretty wacky ideas."











I'm sorry too, but no I certainly do not have to admit that.

Actually you do bring up a pretty fascinating point at the very end of your statement on the history of Philadelphia Golf Architecture Mythology----eg Tillinghast!

It has long fascinated me why in so many ways even though he knew quite well all those "amateur/sportsmen" who collaborated with one another so readily in a select number of significant courses here, Tillinghast never did collaborate with them on any of those projects other than what is known about his involvement with Crump at PV. I have often wondered why that was even though, early on, he was on the GAP for a time and their handicap chairman. I do not know the reason for that but I suspect it might've had something to do with the fact that a number of them might have suspected he took money for architecture and knew he did for other things in the area of golf and to them that was just not the thing to do.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
And I almost forgot that crazy Aronimink story you came up with about how the course was first designed and built by Ross the way it has been restored (with minimal bunkers), and then redesigned a couple of years later by the rogue McGovern (with maximum bunkers). That was a beauty. Or the one about PV hiring Colt only as a publicity stunt in order to draw members.

Jim
I don't know about that. I think Merion hiring an untested, inexperienced insurance salesman when they had the two top designers (Macdonald and Barker) at their disposal takes the cake.

[JESII]

Believe me Tom, I know what you think on that...

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

There's no good reason to pursue this kind of thing with you but there is one very important correction I should make to your wording. Merion did not "HIRE" anyone to design their golf course for them. Quite the opposite, in fact; they were distinctly opposed to such a thing or have you never noticed the rather extraordinary speech Sayers gave in 1915 when he became MCC's president? The club was so impressed with it they asked him to publish it. For someone who has for so long criticized the history of Philadelphia architecture, the sum total of what you appear not to know about it is staggering!

[TEPaul]

Additional information and other valuable "high-fallutin'" intellectual thoughts from Michael "CC" Cirba, Public Golf Course Restoration Historian Supreme to the Usual "Hoi Polloi" Suspects of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, including David S. Moriarty, the Admirable Inactive LaLa Land Lawyer who has been known to fly with Sicillian Pelicans who possess other-worldly ears for getting information any way they can get it:



David,
 
I thought we were having a dialogue?   If instead you are just looking to posture here for the group while presenting a number of elements completely out of context to prove some political point then I'm actually disappointed.   Who exactly do you think you're convincing here?   I fully expect Tom MacWood to have his mind made up and to be unswayable by actual facts, but thought perhaps you were more fair-minded and truth be told, smarter.
 
Why no comment about MacWood's error in interpreting the William Evans article, where he claims that the article states that Wilson, Smith, and Klauder will be designing the course while completely misunderstanding that the course had already been routed and that it said that in the previous paragraph?   You are always so quick to leap on the errors of others, yet strangely....
 
For instance, in your last post you mentioned my contention that Cobb's Creek was once compared to Pine Valley for degree of challenge.   Note that I never said that it was compared in terms of quality of design or maintenance, or anything else, yet you make the very same mistake as your aforementioned Peter Putter and misinterpret what Horace Gamble said.
 
And why not just copy and past the entire article, or the rebuttal article in an opposing newspaper?   I know you have the ability to do that...why just type out the parts you would like everyone to read to make your point and omit the rest?   
 
The fact is that a number of top golfers, including North & South Amateur champion Norman Maxwell rose to Cobb's defense after Peter Putter made his obvious interpretation error.   
 
I've also posted multiple times, both here and on the Philadelphia Golfer thread started by Joe Bausch, exactly why the book mentions Travis, Thomas, Flynn, and Sayers, copying verbatim from the book in what their role was.   Why the continued effort to ignore that by both you and Tom?   None of them were on the committee who designed the course, yet each did have a role in the story, with Travis credited for providing advice, Thomas spending a good deal of time onsite and claiming to have learned a lot from Hugh Wilson there, Flynn doing the actual shaping of features, and Sayers listed as in charge of Instruction on opening day.   
 
Should I just have omitted them?
 
At the rate you guys are going in misrepresentation and misinterpretation, I should just post the whole book here.   For those interested in reading it for themselves so they can avoid the bizarro prism that a few here are trying to cast over it, it can be found here;
 
http://trenhamgolfhistory.org/Documents/Cobbs_Creek_History_April2012ver2a/index.html
 
And for those actually curious about what Horace Gamble was comparing in terms of challenge between the two courses that David strangely omitted, here's the article;
 


 
 
And you claim that I'm the one with an agenda, David?   
 
Mike

[TEPaul]

Please spare me; don't kill the messanger:


All,
 
And since Tom MacWood suddenly and thankfully now accepts William Evans as a credible inside source about Philadelphia golf after trying desperately in years past to discredit the poor fellow for all the times he credited Hugh Wilson with Merion East's design, perhaps he missed this article while in what seems to be an apparent fevered state lately, trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the book and at Tom Paul.   
 

 
Thanks,
Mike

[TEPaul]

Or the messanger and his next message:



All,
 
And since Tom MacWood suddenly and thankfully now accepts William Evans as a credible inside source about Philadelphia golf after trying desperately in years past to discredit the poor fellow for all the times he credited Hugh Wilson with Merion East's design, perhaps he missed this article while in what seems to be an apparent fevered state lately, trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the book and at Tom Paul.   
 

 
Thanks,
Mike

[TEPaul]

Or the messenger and his third and last message, since he is being forced by his wife to go to North Florida tomorrow to sit on some God-forfending beach and read a book. Actually it's a very cool book indeed by James Brison called "At Home." I highly recommend it to everyone on Golfflubatlas.com.




David,
 
I thought we were having a dialogue?   If instead you are just looking to posture here for the group while presenting a number of elements completely out of context to prove some political point then I'm actually disappointed.   Who exactly do you think you're convincing here?   I fully expect Tom MacWood to have his mind made up and to be unswayable by actual facts, but thought perhaps you were more fair-minded and truth be told, smarter.
 
Why no comment about MacWood's error in interpreting the William Evans article, where he claims that the article states that Wilson, Smith, and Klauder will be designing the course while completely misunderstanding that the course had already been routed, which was indicated in the previous paragraph?   You are always so quick to leap on the errors of others, yet strangely....
 
For instance, in your last post you mentioned my contention that Cobb's Creek was once compared to Pine Valley for degree of challenge.   Note that I never said that it was compared in terms of quality of design or maintenance, or anything else, yet you make the very same mistake as your aforementioned Peter Putter and misinterpret what Horace Gamble said.
 
And why not just copy and past the entire article, or the rebuttal article in an opposing newspaper?   I know you have the ability to do that...why just type out the parts you would like everyone to read to make your point and omit the rest?   
 
The fact is that a number of top golfers, including North & South Amateur champion Norman Maxwell rose to Cobb's defense after Peter Putter made his obvious interpretation error.   
 
I've also posted multiple times, both here and on the Philadelphia Golfer thread started by Joe Bausch, exactly why the book mentions Travis, Thomas, Flynn, and Sayers, copying verbatim from the book in what their role was.   Why the continued effort to ignore that by both you and Tom?   None of them were on the committee who designed the course, yet each did have a role in the story, with Travis credited for providing advice, Thomas spending a good deal of time onsite and claiming to have learned a lot from Hugh Wilson there, Flynn doing the actual shaping of features, and Sayers listed as in charge of Instruction on opening day.   
 
Should I just have omitted them?
 
Also, I did explain to you the timing of the information about Father Carr, and the sources, indicating that I would include more about him in future editions.   Yet, you omit that explanation and act as if I omitted him because he wasn't important yet you know that's not true.
 
At the rate you guys are going in misrepresentation and misinterpretation, I should just post the whole book here.   For those interested in reading it for themselves so they can avoid the bizarro prism that a few here are trying to cast over it, it can be found here;
 
http://trenhamgolfhistory.org/Documents/Cobbs_Creek_History_April2012ver2a/index.html
 
And for those actually curious about what Horace Gamble was comparing in terms of challenge between the two courses that David strangely omitted, here's the article;
 


 
 
And since Tom MacWood suddenly and thankfully now accepts William Evans as a credible inside source about Philadelphia golf after trying desperately in years past to discredit the poor fellow for all the times he credited Hugh Wilson with Merion East's design, perhaps he missed this article while in what seems to be an apparent fevered state lately, trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the book and at Tom Paul.   
 

 
Finally, since even the involvement of Frank Meehan has been questioned, here's the Park Engineer of Fairmount Park weighing in on Meehan's role, again directly from the book;
 
"In any case we know that by August, 1924, when work began in earnest to build additional public courses in Philadelphia at Juniata (Tacony) as well as a second eighteen at Cobb’s Creek (Karakung), the following news item appeared in the Philadelphia Evening Ledger;
 
The city will be saved a big fee for a golf architect, in the program for the erection of a course in Tacony, Mr. Corson said (Corson is the Chief Engineer at this time of Fairmount Park and had been assistant to Jesse Vogdes in 1916).  He announced that he himself, a golfer, and Frank Meehan, Hugh Wilson and A. H. Smith, all members of the Philadelphia Golf Association, would probably design the course.

"Mr. Meehan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Smith gave their aid in laying out the course at Cobbs Creek," stated the chief engineer, "and I am sure that they will help us with the Tacony links."
 
Thanks,
Mike
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Folks,
Does the creation of Cobb's Creek hint at the feelings that private club members had for their public brothers back then?

I'm really happy that these men of some of Philly's most prestigious clubs were out there working to provide quality golf for the non-member.  And I love how Pine Valley opened its doors in '28 for Publinx players.

Are there other examples where the leaders of the private club scene in a city worked together to provide quality municipal golf?

For what it's worth, that's the hidden jewel in this whole story, and why the restoration of CC is so important to me.  It's a testament that describes people of all backgrounds coming together to improve the quality of life for the common man.

[TEPaul]

Michael "CC" Cirba:

Just one last question before I fly to Florida for a week------are you familiar with the Congressional debating technique known as Fillibuster?  


PS:
Dan Hermann, what a wonderful question and thought.

Are some of us in and around Philadelphia pissed off at MacWood and Moriarty for the ridiculous campaign they have waged against this town, some of its best golf historians and its golf architecture history for close to a decade now? OH YEAH, some of us sure are, but I try to remind them from time to time of Mark Twain's wonderful thought and quote:

"NOTHING in the WORLD can withstand the ONSLAUGHT of HUMOR!"

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom - Can we invoke cloture? 

[TEPaul]

Dan:

If we eat all the wrong food and drink enough for long enough, we probably can. I don't really know, my friend, but I think those two or three M-birds have probably pretty much made their own beds now in the eyes and minds of most and frankly that is basically all I've ever been interested in with those pelicans pith paparrently a personal problem pabout Philadelpia polf parchitecture.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  Not posturing, just trying to be respectful of your status as non-member of this website.  

Also, your "messenger" cannot seem to resist commenting on his delusions about personal life even in passing along a message. That is the sort of person he is and I find that more than a little creepy, and I don't want to have anything to do with a person like that, so I am not inclined to continue our dialogue indefinitely if you choose to have it through him.

Much your post seems to have fallen back into the same old stuff about agendas, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, bizzaro prisms, etc.  Is it really so hard for you to focus on the substance?   Am I not allowed to have an opinion and express it without you indirectly accusing me of having an agenda?  I never said a thing about an agenda.

I posted the portion of the article I thought was relevant and humorous, the part about taking the sentiments of those closest to Cobbs "with a grain of salt." (the same could be said about those closest to PV.)  That was the same language I used in the post that seems to have gotten everyone so upset.   While it may be yours, it is not my style to post difficult to read newspaper articles when there is no need to do so, especially when they are readily available elsewhere. Besides, I mentioned the rebuttal article was in your work, even though it  has nothing to do with my post.  My post was directed to your use of a comparison by Cobb's professional to try and bolster the reputation of the course, not at the underlying dispute.  In other words, even if you think Cobb's did compare in the way described in that article, my point remains exactly the same.  In fact you may have made it stronger!

Do you really not see why some might find it odd for to use a "comparison" of Cobbs and PV to bolster Cobb's reputation, yet not identify up front that it was merely a comparison by the pro at Cobbs?   It gets back into the fact that everyone loves their own Mom and their own golf course, but in selling the course you seem to overlook this.  

As for Thomas and Crump, once again you didnt answer my questions, but instead referred to your other numerous posts which also don't answer the questions.  Add to those questions one more . . . when did Horace Gamble become the professional at Cobbs?

What contemporaneous evidence is there that Thomas spent "a good deal of time on site?"  As I said, it looks like Geoff is using the same source as you, but it doesn't really say that.      

[TEPaul]

"Also, your "messenger" cannot seem to resist commenting on his delusions about personal life even in passing along a message. That is the sort of person he is and I find that more than a little creepy, and I don't want to have anything to do with a person like that, so I am not inclined to continue our dialogue indefinitely if you choose to have it through him."



David:

At this point and from what I am hearing from all over the place that kind of idea articulated in your remark above is nothing more than your way of copping out and avoiding answering things you just don't feel comfortable answering despite your protestations that you should have the right to ask questions about the things yoiu're really interested in and that you should be able to expect honest and truthful answers to your questions from others. I like your thought on that, and we should all have the same opportunity.