David,
Could none of the 800+ "H. Wilson"'s who came back from England between 1908 & 1912 be Hugh? Maybe? Maybe not?
Look David...several days ago I asked you very kindly to please come forward with any new information that you've alluded to. As a researcher, I'm keenly interested, but I didn't want to have the same interpretive battles all over again over records that you think are 100% accurate and I believe are significantly incomplete, as well as wording of articles and timeframes.
However, we're back at square one, you've added absolutely nothing new (even though I KNOW you have stuff that you're holding in an attempt to make fools of some of us) and I for one don't have either the time or the temperament for the game.
And yes, I do know it's a setup, designed to embarrass Tom and Wayne, revenge for past grievances, and probably to get me too at this point. Nice that you have time for such pettiness.
Frankly, I had thought much more highly of you, even after all that past contentiousness we've had. You know, I feared this was your plan from the start, but then I thought to myself..."nah...he's not that kind of a guy"
I was wrong.
Sadly, the ironic truth is that even if you manage to make Wayne and Tom and me look woefully misinformed, now everyone knows that this was your covert intention all along, and it sure doesn't show much respect for your larger audience on GCA to have dragged everyone interested in the very worthwhile topic through this cheap charade.
So David, if you have information, which I also know that you do, I would suggest this;
Put it all together for everyone's dissemination...write a "In My Opinion" piece for Ran...send it to a golf journal and get it published. If it adds to the history and understanding of Merion, that's great. If you show that our understanding is wrong, I'm fine with that. If it shows that Fred Pickering designed Merion, or Walter Travis, or CB Macdonald, or Mickey Mouse, that's ok too. I don't have sacred cows...just object to tearing down idols without 100% proof.
As I mentioned in our email thread, I do believe that we're just beginning to work through all of the histories, especially of that very early period of American golf and I find that fascinating. I had hoped we could collaborate more cooperatively, but you decided to come back here with a vengeful agenda, and I guess I fell for it.
Shame on me. Congratulations are in order, I guess. Nice job.
I'm done here with you. The game's up. The scoreboard shows 0 to 0. We all lose.
p.s. I promised Tom MacWood that I would post the rest of what he wrote to me about the manifests he found on Ancestry.com
Here it is;
"Mike,
>>He is listed as George R. Crump. These lists are mostly hand written
>> so
>> with literally millions of records to transcribe you are going have
>> minor mistakes here and there (thats also true with the census records
>> and I don't see anyone questioning their creditability) . Because
>> there
>> are occasional errors I find that it is wise to alternate how one
>> searches for a person, not only alternating the spelling of the name
>> or
>> middle initial, but also searching by spouse or sibling or traveling
>> companion."
Like a lot of research it can be quite tedious and time
>> consuming but as you and Joe B know all the hours spent are often
>> rewarded.
>>
>> I've been searching these records for a couple of years I will tell
>> you
>> they are a remarkable resource. I have been able to track down the
>> movements of every important golf architecture figure in the last 100+
>> years, not only confirming what was already known but also discovering
>> some surprising new stuff (like the fact that Herbert Fowler came to
>> the US in 1913). From my point of view your attempt to discredit this
>> tool is clearly misinformed.
>>
>> TM
Sayonara, Dude...