Tom,
So because Flynn's daughter was wrong about one piece of irrelevant information to our topic, one which we saw no need to fact check as a result, you are skeptical about her entire contribution. I don't care. In a 1700 page book on the work in golf by William Flynn we are not going to get every fact right. I don't mind so much that we quoted Flynn's daughter as saying her grandfather died when her father was young and that appears to be incorrect (I too have the 1930 census reports) and comment on the remark in later versions of our manuscript. You are absolutely correct that it does not appear in your OBSOLETE version. Why you continue to criticize an obsolete manuscript is curious indeed, especially since all you seem to come up with for critiques are arcane facts. You choose to constantly critique on this website. If you think I sent you that DRAFT years ago to discredit me in public, I think you misunderstood the motivation to send it to you. It was supposed to be a constructive confidential due diligence process not fodder for your public vendetta. In any case, have at it with these minute corrections of an obsolete manuscript. If you want to focus on that, fine. I think the site sees exactly what you're attempting to do as you expose yourself as the petty expert researcher that you are. Why you aren't correcting your protege's mistake laden essay, seems obvious. You want to rewrite history for your own promotion at the expense of the truth. By the way, by mistake laden, I'm talking big mistakes, not when the father of Wilson's second cousin twice removed died kind of mistakes.
Now, as for the Flynn article, what makes you think that the article as appeared in the Golf Architecture series was the entire manuscript I submitted? How can you ignore the possibility that the piece was edited down? It was a journal article, not the definitive treatise you would have it be. That was one article of many in the journal and it was not at all intended to be the definitive study on Flynn and certainly not Pickering. Neil had a difficult job given the amount of material I sent him. I think he did a fantastic job of editing and presenting enough facts that people will be intrigued by Flynn and want to know more. I am happy with the article on the whole. Sorry you could not find any merits worth discussing, only faults that you relish discussing in public. Such is your nature, disgusting as it may be.
As for my discussions of Pickering, you falsely characterize them. It wasn't only when M&W were introduced that I took up the Pickering mantle. I took up Pickering from the first time I heard of him by Flynn's daughter in November 2001 (I have the conversation recorded if you would like to confirm). By the way, M&W wasn't introduced by you and your protege. They were properly credited all along by the Merion chroniclers and by the participants themselves. You two didn't introduce M&W, you completely fabricated and distorted their role along with mistakenly discrediting the actual participants in the locating, design and build teams. You guys made serious mistakes of the kind a novice would make. So, I've been talking about him for years, maybe not to you, but so what? I don't talk to you. Take a look at the thread on your protege's essay (I guess you're proud of that one since you fail to criticize it at all). You'll see where I brought him up plenty of times and in proper perspective. If you don't think I've been promoting him properly for years, you are wrong and twisting the truth to your own end. By the way, even if I didn't promote him as much as you say I should, you ignored him completely. In an attempt to prove that only M&W had the ability to pull off the design and construction of Merion's new Ardmore course, you failed miserably to include Pickering's expertise or even recognize him at all. I brought that up right away in my careful and toned down analysis. It didn't get combative until the reactions by the author demonstrated a lack of being able to handle constructive criticism. Your criticism by the way is not constructive, it is intended to be destructive. That's why you use old material and that's why you do so on this site.
By the way, M&W provided valuable advice at three pivotal stages, as has always been asserted by Merion, if only done so in general. They DID NOT select the property, rout or design the golf course. I don't care if you stick to your notions that they did. You are WRONG and it will eventually come out. You'll eat some flocks of crow at that point. For now, we are not inclined, in deference to the clubs involved, to publish private raw data on this site. In the meantime, you come off as stubborn zealots of your own mistake-riddled theories. If you don't want Tom Paul or others to offer their opinions, I understand your motivation to censor them. It isn't right, but your motives are transparent. If you don't think Pickering got a proper amount of discussion in the Flynn book, you have no clue because your version is obsolete and a fraction of the current version. Stop trying to discredit us with old manuscripts and edited articles. You are providing no benefits and only attempt to bring us down to the gutter level in your zeal to take Tom Paul and I down. Well guess what? You won't bring us down to the gutter, nor the many levels below that where you and your protege dwell.