News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2008, 11:42:00 PM »
I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a discussion about Mr. Leeds about whom I know precious little.  I would rather learn more by spending time at Myopia than by reading about his personal life, but that's just me -- there are a lot of people who like to gossip and I think this whole line of reasoning is really more about gossip than about biography.

Tom MacWood, I am surely in disagreement with David McCullough ... if there were an entirely virtuous person it would CERTAINLY be of interest, because in reality I think it is extremely rare if not downright impossible.  But I don't think that, say, the details of Ben Crenshaw's divorce have much to do with his opinions on golf architecture, and thankfully no one here is rude enough to speculate about them ... in fact golf writers and sportswriters have historically tended to give athletes' personal lives a pass, and I don't think we have really missed too much of value in that omission.


Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2008, 11:46:24 PM »
I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a discussion about Mr. Leeds about whom I know precious little.  I would rather learn more by spending time at Myopia than by reading about his personal life, but that's just me -- there are a lot of people who like to gossip and I think this whole line of reasoning is really more about gossip than about biography.

Tom MacWood, I am surely in disagreement with David McCullough ... if there were an entirely virtuous person it would CERTAINLY be of interest, because in reality I think it is extremely rare if not downright impossible.  But I don't think that, say, the details of Ben Crenshaw's divorce have much to do with his opinions on golf architecture, and thankfully no one here is rude enough to speculate about them ... in fact golf writers and sportswriters have historically tended to give athletes' personal lives a pass, and I don't think we have really missed too much of value in that omission.


Are you saying that MacKenzie's colorful life had absolutely no bearing on your decision to write about him? Did you delve into his private life?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 11:48:40 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2008, 11:59:35 PM »
"What year did Leeds assume controll of Myopia's golf course, and what does the club history say about James Parker?"

Tom Macwood:

I already told you that on here. You really must be incapable of reading and understanding. God help you if you chew gum at the same time.

Maybe what you should do for starters if you really are interested in an objective perspective of Myopia Hunt Club and the history of its course and architecture is get yourself a copy of the club's history book and read the fucking thing first before you dismiss it all on here and try to come across as knowing something of the history of the golf course's architecture. You incredibly arrogant ass, yesterday you stated on here you wouldn't think of doing a thing for me to help Myopia with its history and yet you keeping asking me question after question after question about it. Why don't you study the club's own history and their history book first and then go there and get to know the place, the course, it's history, and the history of its membership, including Leeds, instead of leaning on me to provide everything for you?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2008, 12:04:18 AM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2008, 12:10:33 AM »
TE
No matter, its pretty obvious to you and to everyone else your club history is not very useful. In 1898 James Parker was head of the green committee, perhaps not as prestigious as master of the hounds, but important none the less. 

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2008, 12:28:44 AM »
"TE
No matter, its pretty obvious to you and to everyone else your club history is not very useful. In 1898 James Parker was head of the green committee, perhaps not as prestigious as master of the hounds, but important none the less."

Yes, Parker is mentioned in Myopia's history. The head of the green committee in 1898 for the purposes of your interest of who laid out the golf course in 1894 probably isn't quite as important.  ;)

R.M Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner layed out the golf course in 1894 according to the Myopia history book and you have offered absolutely zero to refute it. And something tells me you can't. I think everyone reading this thread can certainly see you won't. I wonder why that is? ;)

I've provided my source---Myopia's own records. You pretty much need to provide your source if you actually have one. It would be completely ludicrous if you are asking this website to take your word for it----a man who has never even been to that club and knows virtually nothing about it or is architectural history or its architect.
 
 
 
« Last Edit: July 24, 2008, 12:35:33 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2008, 12:42:37 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Speaking of fair game and delving into peopls's private lives do you think it's fair game to delve into the details of your private life, and if not why not?  ;)

As far as I can tell almost no one from this website has ever seen you. Why is that? Please tell me you aren't some other personality on here of David Moriarty. That would be the cruelest of all jokes, I can assure you!  ;)

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2008, 02:01:47 AM »
So Woody Allen goes and starts up a relationship with the adopted daughter of his girlfriend. Hard for me to perceive that as anything but reprehensible. And when I hear about it, I can't help but think of Allen's movie "Manhattan." I liked it when I first saw it, but now I can't help but see it as a kind of justification of what was going on in his personal life, and I don't even want to watch the movie any more.

What's interesting to me here is that I would never say that the truth shouldn't have come out regarding that situation, and the fact that my opinion of the guy has been greatly lessened is ultimately irrelevant.

At the same time, gca isn't show business, and golf has a much more gentlemanly history than show business (and yes, being a "gentleman in some ways implies the hiding of certain things.....like one's bony knees, for example). Also, the direct relationship between Allen's life and his movie that I mentioned above is unlikely to occur in golf course architecture.

So for me, when it comes to golf courses and their history, I'm interested in who was involved, I'm interested in how the courses came to be how they are, and what changes they underwent over the years, and I'm really interested in studying what exists on the ground today. The personal lives  of the folks who designed them? Well, to the degree that it might materially affect their design (courses they'd seen, people they worked with, their background in golf as a player, etc.), I'm interested. Past that, not so much.

Perhaps one of my many failings.

As regards Mr. Leeds - Tom Macwood, have you read the Myopia history that Tom Paul has mentioned? If not, why not? It's fair to ask if TP has read the newspaper accounts you mention as well, and perhaps the USGA Archives should contain that kind of material as well as histories derived from the clubs themselves (even if they disagree - history isn't always neat and tidy, and there's often no consensus, even on very well documented events). If one's truly curious about learning the history of a club, how can one afford to ignore any part of the historical record?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2008, 03:16:07 AM »
I certainly don't want to get in the middle of a discussion about Mr. Leeds about whom I know precious little.  I would rather learn more by spending time at Myopia than by reading about his personal life, but that's just me -- there are a lot of people who like to gossip and I think this whole line of reasoning is really more about gossip than about biography.

For me this is the key distinction right here.  Gossip versus biography.   A tough line to draw, but an important one.   Look at the way various personal details (true or false) have been dealt with on here by different posters.   

A good example of biography would be MacWood's piece on Crump.  The only thing despicable and reprehensible about it was what Paul and Morrison put him through in the process.  I have no problem with accurate and balanced biography about those long dead.   

A good example of nasty pointless gossip would be the caricatures of Emmet, Whigham, and MacDonald.  They are not only largely false and unsupported, they are also wielded rhetorically to create a false impression of the man and his work.   Sadly people fall for it on here all the time, and base their opinions of the men on the false and misleading gossip.   

Another issue on here is that many seem to have more respect for the long dead than they do the living.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2008, 06:16:23 AM »
Kirk
I have read it, but its been a few years.

TE
Do you think Leeds and Parkers relationship was a factor in Leeds eventually being given carte blanche with the golf course?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2008, 07:33:41 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Actually my work on the MacKenzie book was a very interesting dilemma.

As you know I had co-authors:  Dr. Scott who had done quite a bit of research into Dr. MacKenzie's personal life and background as well as what courses he had worked on, but who did not know a lot about golf course architecture, and Ray Haddock who is Dr. MacKenzie's step-grandson and has a keen interest in seeing only the good side of the story written.  So right there, there was plenty of potential conflict in what went to print.

I was friendly with the publisher Mr. Lewis, and he originally asked me just to write about Dr. MacKenzie's courses and what made them special.  I would have been happy to keep my role to that except for two problems.  First, if the "biography" part was separate from the "golf architecture" part, the book might have been very dry and in two different voices, and it would have been hard to organize.  Second, Mr. Lewis was not happy with Dr. Scott's prose and wanted me to integrate the two pieces but essentially rewrite that part of it, which was a tough assignment.  And, in the process, I was left to think about what of the personal details should be in or out.

Sadly, I've got to get on the road this morning, so I will leave the cliffhanger story there for right now, but will follow up tonight or this weekend on the sordid gossip about Dr. MacKenzie and his circle of friends ...


Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2008, 08:34:02 AM »
TD
Yours was a complicated situation no doubt but I think you did the right thing including personal info about his divroce and estrangement from some of his family. After all his brother for many years was his right hand man, and MacKenzie did end up relocating half way across the world.

I'd actually like to know more about Mackenzie the man.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2008, 08:40:21 AM »
Steve Martin did a comedy bit on this subject in his act, circa 1976 or so....the punch line was "So what if I have this thing on my weeny?"
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2008, 08:53:18 AM »
"Kirk
I have read it, but its been a few years."

I would submit on here that is probably not true. If it were one wonders why I'm constantly asked questions by Tom MacWood about what it says.

No, Kirk, I have not seen the supposed articles on Willie Campbell designing Myopia or even that he was the professional there for a time in the early 1890s. But I'm going up there this weekend and I'll ask around if any of the people from the club interested in its history have heard that. That Tom MacWood seems to be insinuating that Mr Edward Weeks' account of who laid out the original nine holes in 1894 is a lie appears to me just more of the same things he insinuates with other courses (and this including the fact I doubt Tom MacWood is even aware of Mr. Weeks' Myopia history book account).

I think the extent of Tom MacWood's understanding of the architectural history of Myopia is some article he found somewhere. It was the same thing he did with Merion---eg an old article or two got his attention, and that was about all he knew of Merion's history. I think the guy just tends to find these things about courses and then tends to make a federal case out of it to promote himself as a researcher. It's not much more than that, in my opinion. Clubs may be interested in those kinds of old tidbits but I doubt any clubs will be interested in revising their architectural histories over things like that just because someone like MacWood who knows nothing else about the club or course thinks they should. But if Campbell designed Myopia's first nine I would like to see what the evidence is. As usual Tom MacWood is hedging or avoiding producing anything actual. I produced the applicable part of Week's history book but MacWood likely won't produce anything about what he's insinuating. It does lead one to wonder if there is anything. This has gotten to be a pattern with him.

"TE
Do you think Leeds and Parkers relationship was a factor in Leeds eventually being given carte blanche with the golf course?"

Wow, what an interesting question. When I mentioned Emmet's "Gay" architecture I was only trying to be humorous. Do you mean to tell me you think Myopia ACTUALLY may be the world's only example of "Gay" architecture?? That is totally fascinating, Tom MacWood. Why don't you do some expert "independent" research on that and post your essay about it on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?  ;)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2008, 09:08:52 AM »
TE
I think people are getting tired of your gay jokes and homophobia. They were never funny to begin with and your repeating them over and over again is frankly disturbing. I would expect more from a grade-schooler, and I doubt the Myopia Hunt C finds your mocking of Leeds too funny.

If you don't want to explore the interworkings of Myopia in 1898, thats fine with me. Lets move on to Leeds redesign of the course.

Leeds made several trips to the UK. Do you have any idea where he went?  Did his changes at Myopia coincide with these trips?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2008, 10:08:47 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2008, 09:26:02 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Are you kidding me? You're the one who started a thread on Leeds and homosexuality, not me!

I'll be back in a week, and I'll look into these threads then. However, I am really failing to see why I should continue to educate YOU on the architectural history of Myopia. Why don't you do it yourself? Oh sorry, I forgot, obviously you can't. You need me for that.

See you in a week. Get to it fella! Have you got a pair of binoculars strong enough to see Myopia from your Ivory Tower in Ohio?  ???
« Last Edit: July 24, 2008, 09:28:37 AM by TEPaul »

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2008, 10:33:44 AM »
I'd actually like to know more about Mackenzie the man.

See, that's interesting to me, Tom. The reality is that we often lose sight of the humanity of historical figures.  While it's harder to pin down the essence of these people, it's certainly a valuable exercise. It almost feels like those giants of the past came into life fully formed, as we know them now, and never developed or changed or dealt with all the petty things that we all do, and knowing about that can expand our knowledge of both the person in question and the time in which they developed and lived. My only complaint on that front is that we tend, I think, to devote too much time and too much weight to elements of scandal or "AHA" moments, and lose sight of the broader picture. That was where I was going with my earlier comments.

So consider for a moment the possibility that, while other clubs brought in professional architects, Myopia utilized Herbert Leeds. Isn't that just as potentially illuminating a fact about the man as who he spent his private time with and why?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2008, 10:42:22 AM »
TE
This thread was created because you went off the deep regrading Leeds, Willie Campbell and Myopia. You started and generated this Myopia discusion (and for that you should be credited). I didn't want the Mass thread hijacked so I continued the line of discusion on a seperate thread. On that thread I questioned the accuracy and authenticity of the supposed Leeds scrapbook (which is missing), and generally the accuracy of the Myopia history, including the omissions of Campbell and personal relationship between two of the club's leading figures, Leeds & Parker. There has been a lot of new and good info generated from your line of questions, thanks to you we have taken an renewed (and overdue I might add) look at Myopia's history.

Regarding my question about the trips abroad, I already know the answer, and you obviously don't know the answer. I was hoping to emphasize that point. For some reason the club history only mentions the 1902 trip. Why would an authenic scrapbook or diary not mention his other trips, and not mention where he went? It makes me wonder.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2008, 07:18:04 AM by Tom MacWood »

Ian Andrew

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2008, 01:33:52 PM »
Tom,

I know way too much about the personal life of Stanley Thompson - much which I will never share. I have accounts from drivers and family that remove the rosey view of designing with a drink in hand. I won't share them because I can't see the point. I think they would distract people from what does matter - which is the art - so why tell that part of the story.

I understand the desire of everyone to find out what makes a person tick - but occasionally we overstep what is nessasary. We need to restore the line between important information and gossip. Not everything is important.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2008, 05:45:11 PM »
 Tom Paul,

I think Dev Emmet looked very nice in his white suit. I had a white polyester suit just like that back in the 70's. It caught on fire when I crossed a room with really deep shag carpet. It's a good thing my room mate was quick with a fire extinguisher.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2008, 11:08:36 PM »
Tom Mac:

I did include a bit of detail about Dr. MacKenzie's divorce, because it was pertinent to why he started traveling overseas and wound up in America, and also to his estrangement from his brother and Alwoodley Golf Club.  The first time I was at Alwoodley, back in 1982, they pretty much pretended not to know that Dr. MacKenzie had been involved with the place ... still fallout from the divorce 50 years later!

However, I had no interest in trying to puzzle together any more details than that.  There are 3 sides to every divorce story and I didn't think anyone's 50-year-hindsight explanation would really add to the picture of the Doctor.  (As Ian notes, a lot of these guys were borderline alcoholics -- I have no idea about MacKenzie himself other than knowing he drank -- but do we really need to go back and apply AA lessons to the history of golf architecture?)  It may add to someone's idea of his "personality" but to me it just allows someone to paint a stereotype over the top of the man.  It's just the same as an architect applying a stereotype of MacKenzie's design style to a restoration instead of actually looking at the pictures, isn't it?


Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #70 on: July 25, 2008, 06:37:40 AM »
TD
On the other hand MacKenzie definitnely has a identifiable style, which seemed to transfer from continent to continent, and from design associate to design associate. Identifiable but not necessarily easy to replicate.

I'm not that interested in who said what during a divorce but if there was a patern of personal behavior that was repeated often, and is well documented, I think we should know about it, good or bad. The same is true for Thompson, or Travis or Macdonald. Today we are given these pictures of the happy go lucky alchoholic. The drinking is looked upon as charming, and a factor in their success. Is that an accurate picture? I doubt it. Thats a common stereotype in the annals of golf architecture.

IMO there is no good reason to protect these icons that we tend to over romaniticize (which IMO contributes to many of the mistakes in antribution over the years). Obviously their remarkable accomplishments should be emphasized, but their good, bad, grey actions privately are part of who they are as men. You don't need to over empahisize or sensationalize that part, keep it in perspective, but it shouldn't be ignored either. IMO you can not separate their background, influences and private life from their successful public life.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2008, 07:07:25 AM by Tom MacWood »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2008, 11:47:45 AM »
... The Herculean task of the biographer is to recover the person, as a human being, from history. To put the flesh and bones back on him so that he may walk among us.

Why should the biographer set this as his goal? Because words and acts without the life do not make a man. We are reduced to a recounting of the "accomplishments" of a machine.

A plaster saint.

Adding the life to the work gives us a deeper appreciation for the work, that a human being did this...."


Mark - I've been thinking about this post of yours for a while.

I'm all for historians uncovering or discovering the personal facts of a subject's life (although I'd hope that they'd focused on getting the public "words and acts" down first, and as comprehesively as possible).  What I question is the almost automatic next step that historians tend to make, i.e. the extrapolations and theorizing and assumptions they do/make in linking the public and private lives, and in 'explaining' the public works via the private life. I don't think I object to that in principle, but in practice I don't think it's usually done very well. And I think that's important because, in the hands of a talented writer, these assumed linkages and 'explanations' can become so interwoven into the narrative arc of the story that a reader can't tell where the history and truth and facts end and where the speculations begin; the one version of story of the subject's life can easily become THE story.  Historians, I believe, need to be more circumspect in this regard. 

But also -- and at the risk of sounding arrogant -- I have to admit that, if a good historian has given me all the facts about a subject's life both public and private, I feel very capable of making those linkages and finding those explanations for myself, and just as capable as the historian is (assuming he/she has put down on the page all they know or have discovered about the subject). In truth, I prefer to make my own linkages, as it allows me to participate more in what I'm reading. What's the alternative? Am I supposed to assume that the historian has more life experience or more insight into the human condition than you or I do, Mark?  If he/she has gotten the acts and words and facts of a subject's life down on paper, what special and unique qualifications does he/she have to go further than that, and to create a narrative and an 'explanation' that ties those facts together?

To paraphrase (I forget who) - "every philosophy contains within it the author's autobiography"...or I might say "every biography contains within it the historian's own philosophy."   

Yes, I don't want "plastic saints", Mark. But I'd like to think that I'm not a plastic person - no one is. I think as grown-ups we're quite capable of understanding the complexities and contradictions and failings of all human beings; such that, if we have the facts, we're not likely to create plastic saints out of the materials of our own psyches. Of course, that 'version' of the subject will be in part of our own making, the facts filtered through the lens of our own lives. But then again, the alternative is to ask me to accept another person's 'version', which also has been filtered through a lens. I'm sorry, but I tend to prefer my own, if only because it is my own. (Also, my version exists only for me, in my own mind and in the privacy of my living roon; I'm not putting out in public for others to believe in.)  And I think that a good historian leaves room for that to happen; he/she allows for that participation instead of trying to prove themselves smarter and more insightrful than anyone else. A good historian is, I think, humble. (Maybe a good storyteller is not).

And finally, Mark - when it comes to the work of artists etc, I tend to find that looking at or reading or listening to or participating in the work itself tells me as much and all I need to know about the artist's life, if in a more subtle and vague and less-prescribed way. It seems to me that if anyone thinks that great art isn't also an exposing of the artist's in-most self and deepest self-understanding, they don't understand either art or the creative process.   

And to bring this abruptly back to golf course architecture, don't you think you can tell/understand something important and significant about, say, Ben Crenshaw through his work with Bill Coore in designing courses?  Do you need to know more 'details' about the man's private life to get a sense of why, say, Sand Hills is the way it is, and a sense of the spirit(s) behind its creation?          

Excuse the ramble. I'd been thinking about your post since yesterday.

Peter
« Last Edit: July 25, 2008, 12:42:39 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2008, 12:53:05 PM »
Peter:  I think I am more or less on the same page with you here, and I am seeing that I am never going to agree with Tom MacWood about it.

I never set out to be a "biographer" of Dr. MacKenzie ... I was trying to explain HIS WORK and what was important and unique about it, and I got caught up in the personal details from my collaborator.  But, I think the role of a biographer should be the same as that of a doctor -- "First, do no harm."

I have written things in the past based on hearsay, only to later find out that they were not true, and as much as I tried to avoid drawing conclusions in the MacKenzie book there were several which have been found out to be wrong in the years since it was published. 

For a biographer to gather facts about someone's personal life is a situation very open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and I just don't think they should be going there ... but apparently that is the very thing that drives biographers in the first place, the zeal to draw conclusions that nobody else has drawn.  :)  See, we can generalize about them, too. 

They probably have severe envy of their subjects ... is that because of disagreements with their mother or with their father?

Thomas MacWood

Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2008, 03:02:04 PM »
TD
I don’t believe I criticized your handling of the MacKenzie book. You’ve explained you just wanted to analyze his work, there was no desire to write a  biography, that part was more or less thrown on your lap. I understand that. I was simply disagreeing with your view that the private life of a golf architect should be off limits when trying to tell the story of Herbert Leeds, George Crump or any other famous figure. And typically historian do not delve into personal details because they like gossip, they do it because its impossible to fully explore a person’s life without it.

Peter
I agree with much of what you wrote. I want the biographer to present the facts, but I don’t want him to be a dime store psychologist. We may differ slightly in that I don’t have a problem with the writer explaining or presenting linkages, but I don’t want the story to be loaded with tons of conjecture.

It appears your problem is more with poorly written biographies than an objection to the exploration of the personal background of the subject.

As far as getting more from looking at or reading or listen or playing their works, that goes without saying. The product of their genius is the reason why anyone would want to write or read about these guys.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2008, 03:29:03 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2008, 04:00:27 PM »
Tom:

I didn't think you had criticized my handling of the MacKenzie book, my apologies for implying otherwise.  You might feel differently about it if you knew what part of the background I'm leaving out, but since I don't want to send you on a new mission, I'm not going any further with that.

I do believe that most historians either like gossip, or more likely they like the fact that gossip sells books.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back