TEPaul,
You asked me two questions, and I answered your questions, the first of which was:
. . . what do you mean Hugh Wilson's description of the NGLA visit was completely misunderstood all these years?
The answer is that the trip was thought to be about Wilson's trip abroad. Specifically, everyone thought that Macdonald's sole contribution during the meeting was to offer advice on Wilson's itinerary and to describe some of what he should look for on these courses. Since all they were understood to have done was to offer advice about the trip, I wrote they merely considered glorified travel agents. I almost wrote they were considered the Fodor's of GCA Travel. Do you like that better?
You also asked:
Misunderstood by whom?
The answer is that just about everyone who has ever written about this issue has misunderstood it, including Cornish and Whitten, Shackelford, Toulmin, apparently Finnegan, Wayne Morrison, you, and a whole bunch of others who have repeated the legend.
For this you cuss at me, insult me, call me names, and falsely accuse me of insulting Merion. Why? Why on Earth are you so upset about me simply answering these questions? Especially given that the answers are so obvious.
The conventional wisdom about the Merion trip long been that Wilson traveled to NGLA in preparation for his trip abroad so that Macdonald could:
1. Help him plan what courses to see; and
2. Provide a general description of the principles underlying some of the holes on these courses.
This was not the case. They went to NGLA so M&W could continue to help them plan the course.
Yet you fly completely off the handle when I state it in answer to your question. You are not seriously considing denying this are you? Deny it if you want to, but at least do it civilly.
You are behaving very rudely, and I'd like you to stop. If you cannot deal with honest and straight-forward answers to your questions then you should take a break from the website. You obviously need it. You are completely out of control.
"Who wrote the article on Merion's History for the GAP?"
Jim Finegan wrote that. Jim Finegan has had a long and impressive career in golf and architecture book and article writing, and he recently won the USGA's Herbert Warren Wind award for one of his recent books and the man in every single way is worth about ten thousand people like you who just dabble in this stuff to make some instant name for yourself with outrageous sophistry and attempts at historic revisionism.
I have great respect for Mr. Finnegan's work, and I am sure that he appreciates that any understanding of history is in flux and that this particular understanding appears to have been mistaken.
You seem to think that correcting the historical record is the same as insulting or disprespecting those who have repeated the historical record in the past. This is not the case. I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, yet believe his book is mistaken about this issue. Same goes for Cornish and Whitten, same goes for Mr. Toulmin, same goes for Mr. Finnegan. Disagreeing about some mundane issue is much different than disrespecting them.
So why don't you just grow up or get real or whatever it takes for you to just lay off these ridiculous hairsplitting distinctions you're trying to make that the things you're saying are "synopses", your "characterizations" of our words or whatever other lame rationalization you're going to come up with next. I'm just so sick of these constant insinuations about some of us here in Philadephia. It's just preposterous and if you can't figure out why you went about all of this completely wrong beginning a few years ago I guess we can never help you to understand it now.
Insinuations? About what? You shouldn't take this so personally. Nor should you try to twist the historical record to try and pretend that you and others had not been wrong about these issues for years. That would be dishonest and transparent. It is history. We are all wrong some of the time. We just go on and try to work it out. I was wrong about thinking there may have been a detailed description of the routing in CBM's letter. You guys were wrong about the timing of Wilson's travel, the purpose of the NGLA visit, and the extent of CBM's and HJW's involvement in Merion. No big deal. Not worth getting so worked up over.
One thing you did prove, as far as I'm concerned, is that the 1912 rumor that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic in 1912 was actually true. You did not prove the facts behind where that 1910 trip story may've come from. We have most likely done that recently and the odd thing is it may not have come within a half century of the actual event but the point is it makes absolutely no difference anyway and more documentary evidence we've come across confirms that more than ever before.
I hate to disagree again, but I have not proven this at all. I proved that Wilson traveled around the same time as the Titanic, long after he built Merion. This falls well short of proving the legend that he had a ticket on the Titanic but missed the boat. You and Wayne claim to have proof of this, but have not produced the proof yet. I suspect that you guys might be confusing proof with family legend, but it sure would be interesting if you actually have the proof you claim to have.
Take a break Tom. Or if you won't, I suggest you just do not pay any attention to me if I bother you so much. If I am as wrong as you claim I am it should be of no problem for you and Wayne to prove it in your essay. That is if you ever decide to produce the sources backing up what you claim.
Of course any accurate essay will rely heavily on my findings and analysis, but I am sure you guys will try to figure a way around this. I look forward to it.
Good Luck Tom. And take it easy. No reason to get so worked up about such trivial matters.
DM