Ahhh....David...you are amazing!
Obfuscate, confuse, mislead, redefine, refuse to answer any direct questions, and then start from the top and do it again. What are you, a lawyer or something?!
Since you interpret what Findlay wrote as "C.B. Macdonald
laid out the holes at Merion, I guess you're saying that C.B. Macdonald was strictly involved in
"the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” Macdonald had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan." After all, isn't that how you defined what it meant when Hugh Wilson said that he and the Committee laid out the holes at Merion?
If Macdonald actually did the conception and planning of the course, wouldn't another word be more applicable?
Say...something like "Mapping Out"? That might be a term that would define the routing of the golf course pretty unambiguously, don't you think?
Yet, not a peep from you about the other article Joe posted that states very clearly that Hugh Wilson and his Committee "mapped out" Merion as reported opening day in the same newspaper that Alex Findlay wrote for. (see below) If it was inaccurate, and Alex Findlay knew better that Macdonald had created the course, why didn't he correct the record sometime in the next 30 years as everyone around Philadelphia gave credit erroneously to Wilson? Was Findlay another of the Philadelphia Conspiratorial Syndrome??Didn't you find that article of historical interest?
Once again...selective study. You claim to be after the truth yet claim absurd interpretations (such as that Joe Bunker was talking about Merion West as the new course at Merion nine months before it opened) of articles that don't fit with your theories, and ignore, dismiss, or twist definitions of words to suit your purposes.
You also state "as fact" that
"Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion," Findlay did no such thing.
Findlay said that Macdonald laid out "Others".
It is not clear in the least what he means by that. He could be talking about other Alps holes, other template holes such as at NGLA, other courses he trumpeted as having ideal holes....
in fact, it would be ludicrous for Findlay to pronounce individual holes at Merion as "great" when he first tells everyone that he's not even ready to discuss the "possibilities" of the new course given its state of immaturity.
As far as the November article about Barker.
This is not a court of law, no matter how you try to make it into one.
The Merion threads you started here in the past have been exhausting, frustrating, and ultimately demaning to all of us as we let our frustration with each others intractable positions turn into some pretty ugly dialogue. It's why I'm trying to keep things humorous here this time, before it gets out of hand again.
So, when I came across that article, I shared it with Joe and we found it to be interesting because it presented something that was strange and not supported by any other evidence.
I did think about posting it and I'm betting Joe thought about it, as well. But, we never did discuss doing so, and I think separately we probably both came to the same conclusion that unless we had something really interesting, or something really new, or something we thought was clearly valid, we didn't want to open this can of worms again.
At least I know that's what I thought...
Joe can speak for himself, much as you want to speak for him in some effor to make him think you're on his side.
Do you know that Joe and I discussed prior and agreed to post this newest article, simply because it was valid, it was first-hand, and it was newsworthy and valuable?
In fact, BOTH articles we posted are valuable, much as you choose to pretend that the other article that states Wilson and his Committee "mapped out" Merion doesn't exist.