News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1200 on: June 04, 2009, 01:31:56 AM »
"Are you trying to say that you  have actually used the metes and bounds to determine the acreages?  Are you just teasing us along?"


Bryan:

Sorry, you put a lot of posts on here today. It takes some time to get to all of them. ...........................

..................................

Tom,  please, please tell me you were being ironic here, Mr. 35,680 posts and counting.


TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1201 on: June 04, 2009, 01:34:54 AM »
Bryan:

I believe Mike Cirba may be thinking of a road in a photo (painting?) that appeared on a 1911 MCC menu. I believe that road depicted in that 1911 photo(?) is an old farm road on the Johnson farm. I'll check again, but I don't believe Club House Road as it exists today and was built back then was built until 1913 or 1914.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1202 on: June 04, 2009, 01:36:22 AM »
Sure. The excercise should prove the only specific area WHERE the land swap could have happened, and it should explain the only timeframe within which it could've logically happened.

That's what I figured.  This methodology is based on more faulty assumptions than I care to list.

Quote
If you would like to have any details of why that is very likely the case then ask someone else to ask me or perhaps Bryan, Moriarty! Or alternatively just leave Bryan and I alone on a thread dedicated to this and just watch without either of us having to deal with your attempts to sidetrack our discussion. 

Can you do that and if not, why not? Is there something you think you stand to lose with Bryan Izatt and I having a discussion between us without your constant crap?

If you can't or won't do that then I will suggest to him that we take it private while we resolve it so we won't have to deal with your distractions, deceptions, insults, and just general obstructionist riff-raff which you've been engaging in on here for years now!


PS:
By the way, these couple of threads really do flow by quick and I just noticed a few things you said on the "Merion Memories" thread today.

How you answered Peter Pallotta's incredibly good post #189 with your post #192 shows that you aren't worth a damn when it comes to any attempt at a construcive discussion (and that includes your responses to the likes of Niall Carlton and Bradley Anderson and a few others I will name later) but some of the other posts of yours to Cirba and a few others including about me if not off this website by sunrise tomorrow are going to take you off GOLFCLUBATLAS.com permanently.

I will guarantee that!

____________________________________________________


I apologize to Niall, Bradley, Peter, Mike Cirba, Dan, and Rich if I offended you today.   This is a very frustrating process and for what ought to be obvious reasons I am at wits end.  Still that is no excuse to take it out on you, so I apologize if I did.

As for my comments about TEPual, I meant everyone one of them and have nothing to apologize for.

There is no place for someone like him in a civil discussion.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 01:38:59 AM by DMoriarty »
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)

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1203 on: June 04, 2009, 01:40:36 AM »
Bryan:

I just sent you and IM so perhaps we could speak and get to know each other a bit and talk about this entire Francis issue and potential solutions to understand it. Do you have a problem with that and if so why? If you're concerned about your dime I will call you by all means/

But I can sure tell you that your post #1183 is not exactly serving to impress me about you. What is that one about? There's a lot going on and flowing by on these threads and I'm sorry I can't or don't give you my absolute undivided attention.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1204 on: June 04, 2009, 01:45:39 AM »
Bryan:

I just sent you and IM so perhaps we could speak and get to know each other a bit and talk about this entire Francis issue and potential solutions to understand it. Do you have a problem with that and if so why? If you're concerned about your dime I will call you by all means/

But I can sure tell you that your post #1183 is not exactly serving to impress me about you. What is that one about? There's a lot going on and flowing by on these threads and I'm sorry I can't or don't give you my absolute undivided attention.

Is it just me, or does this post seem like it should be coming from a dark van without windows parked next to a grade school playground?  Creepy.

The funny thing about this whole thing is that TEPaul is spinning this like Bryan needs him.  Obviously it is the other way around.    TE should have thought of that when he rudely denied Bryan's polite request for the metes and bounds.
___________________________

Bryan, if no one else will get the metes and bounds I will hire someone.

Don't prostitute yourself to this joker. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 01:51:07 AM by DMoriarty »
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)

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1205 on: June 04, 2009, 01:48:25 AM »
"That's what I figured.  This methodology is based on more faulty assumptions than I care to list."


Let's just hope you won't jump to another one of your faulty and fallacious assumptions and that you're actually capable of just sitting back and watching for a change instead of trying to obstruct whatever anyone elso on here is trying to discuss and do. Even though it may never get through to you, this Richard Francis land swap issue is not just about David Moriarty. You might do well to remember that. When this all plays through there will be plenty of opportunity to get to you and your fallacious essay. This isn't the time for that. ;)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1206 on: June 04, 2009, 01:52:02 AM »
Mike,

HDC owned 320 or so acres prior to buying the Dallas estate, why did they "need" to buy the 20 acre Dallas estate if they didn't know they could immediately sell it to Merion for the golf course?





Jim,

Maybe 15 pages ago, I summarized the purchase of the 338 acres.  Nobody has disputed this (yet).  The purchase seems to have occurred before July 1910 and seems to have included the Dallas Estate(see my timeline post).  But nothing stays the way it seems for very long here.

"In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots.  To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of:

Johnson Farm  140 137/1000 ac.

Dallas Estate    21 ac.

Taylor Estate    56 ac.

Davis Estate      58 ac.

Connor Estate   63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totaling 4 ac. sold (speculation on my part) to Land Title and Trust Co. before 1913)

Total                338 137/1000 ac.
"

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1207 on: June 04, 2009, 01:55:47 AM »
Bryan,

As of July 1910 they only owned the Johnson farm (of those you mentioned)   The rest had been secured by options, except for the Dallas Estate. 

The dallas estate was purchased in the fall of 1910 and it appears it was done on the sly so as to get it for a cheap price.   My essay addresses this, but assumes that Barker did not include it in his plan, but I have since reconsidered this and now I am not so sure. 

I can send you more accurate dates of these various purchases if you want. 
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)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1208 on: June 04, 2009, 01:59:09 AM »
If Bryan Izatt wants to work with me on another thread to try to resolve this Francis issue via an excercise I propose to its conclusion I will be more than happy to then give him any metes and bounds he wants.  Tom, your prerequisite that I undertake your exercise (whatever it is), before you give me the metes and bounds is not acceptable to me.  I'd prefer to complete my own exercise and see what it tells me, and the rest of you, if anything.

But if you come on that thread David Moriarty, it will be over just like that. If I can't have a conversation on this with Bryan Izatt on here without your constant sidetracking interference I will take it private with him if he will go through this excercise with me to its conclusion, then----once again----he can have all the metes and bounds he wants to measure whatever he wants to measure. I hope he can then figure out what it really means in relation to this Francis land swap, how it happened and when (within a timeframe).

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1209 on: June 04, 2009, 02:11:46 AM »
Mike Cirba,

To be fair, you've been an obstructionist from day one (1).

You're certainly not a disinterested, impartial observer.

And, from time to time, you've engaged in the same conduct as TEPaul and David Moriarty, albeit, choosing to solely chastize David.

When Jim Sullivan, Bryan Izatt and others attempt to redirect the "TRIO" toward civility and scholarship, it lasts for all of one hour.

Please, stop making posts you KNOW are disengenuous and help TEPaul and David pursue information that would be valuable to the discovery process, irrespective of whose side is aided/assisted.

Media, PA  should be your first stop.
If I lived closer, I would go myself.

Thanks

Patrick,

Agreed, and I would say the same about you so we're even.

Please see my suggestion on the other thread on how we move this forward.

I told Bryan I'd get those prints for him, but he told me he had enlisted another source.

I asked him again after he said that, so if he still needs someone to make the trip, I volunteer.

It's way past time to wrap this thing up.



Pat,

In all fairness, Mike did offer to go to Media this weekend and get the deeds.  Sadly, the offices are closed on the weekend   :o (being government and all).  In any event, I am pursuing another source, so bear with me.

 

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1210 on: June 04, 2009, 02:15:44 AM »
"Tom, your prerequisite that I undertake your exercise (whatever it is), before you give me the metes and bounds is not acceptable to me.  I'd prefer to complete my own exercise and see what it tells me, and the rest of you, if anything."

Bryan:

No problem. Google Earth measure your ass off! :)

I'm going to give all the metes and bounds to a professional surveyor anyway. If you match them then good for you because I guarantee you they will match me with the incremental acreage results. It's a no-brainer and I hope you figure out why, at some point, after the fact.

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1211 on: June 04, 2009, 02:18:27 AM »
"Jim,

Maybe 15 pages ago, I summarized the purchase of the 338 acres.  Nobody has disputed this (yet).  The purchase seems to have occurred before July 1910 and seems to have included the Dallas Estate(see my timeline post).  But nothing stays the way it seems for very long here.

"In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots.  To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of:

Johnson Farm  140 137/1000 ac.

Dallas Estate    21 ac.

Taylor Estate    56 ac.

Davis Estate      58 ac.

Connor Estate   63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totaling 4 ac. sold (speculation on my part) to Land Title and Trust Co. before 1913)

Total                338 137/1000 ac."







OH MY GOD!!!!
 
 
 

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1212 on: June 04, 2009, 02:24:29 AM »
Mike,

Asking TEPaul to be a moderator is like putting the Fox in charge of the Hen house.

How can you even suggest that ?

It's not the dumbest thing you've suggested, but, it comes close. ;D

Patrick,

I'm not suggesting Tom Paul to be the moderator.

I'm suggesting that a new thread is started that features Sully moderating a discussion between Tom Paul and Bryan Izatt.

I can't speak for Jim, but I'm not really interested in a "discussion" with Tom.  I'd be overwhelmed by about 35 to 1 in posts and 1,000 to 1 in words.  Besides, it's too early to have a discussion.  Whatever I can "prove", if anything, is contingent on the metes and bounds.  The rest is just continual conjecture over the same inexact information.  As to cage matches, with a heavy smoker, surely, you jest.   ;D

The usual suspects can't weigh in, and that includes me and you.

Others can weigh in, but with questions only.   No editorial commentary or introduction of "facts".   

If Sully thinks someone crosses that bound, he tosses them.   No questions, no second chances.

What do you think?

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1213 on: June 04, 2009, 02:28:15 AM »
Patrick,

I don't understand what you guys are afraid of?

Of getting sucked into this black hole of a game the three of you are playing.



TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1214 on: June 04, 2009, 02:36:35 AM »
Bryan

Don't worry about it. I'm sure you will get all those metes and bounds somehow, someday, and then you can GOOGLE EARTH measure you ass off. :)  I would have given them all to you anyway if you went through that excercise with me whether it worked well or not, but don't sweat it. When you get them all and you measure them all correctly we'll be in agreement anyway. A professional surveyor will confirm it, I guarantee it. Complete the guarantee, pal; GOOGLE EARTH measure your ass off when you get all those metes and bounds. Watch out when you go past the Gest boundary----rumor at Merion has it he was a really strange guy who tried to divert people in some odd ways.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 02:55:35 AM by TEPaul »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1215 on: June 04, 2009, 02:51:45 AM »
Bryan:

I just sent you and IM so perhaps we could speak and get to know each other a bit and talk about this entire Francis issue and potential solutions to understand it. Do you have a problem with that and if so why? If you're concerned about your dime I will call you by all means/

Tom, I'd prefer not to.  I'd prefer to try to remain as neutral as I can.  I haven't talked to David about this, nor to Mike. I would prefer to treat all three of you equally.

But I can sure tell you that your post #1183 is not exactly serving to impress me about you. What is that one about? There's a lot going on and flowing by on these threads and I'm sorry I can't or don't give you my absolute undivided attention.  Not sure which post you are talking about; #1183 is one of Jim's. If it's #1281, that's just my sense of humour.  I have trouble keeping up with your posting volume.  I saw irony in your post.  No harm meant.



Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1216 on: June 04, 2009, 02:58:49 AM »
Bryan,

As of July 1910 they only owned the Johnson farm (of those you mentioned)   The rest had been secured by options, except for the Dallas Estate. 

The dallas estate was purchased in the fall of 1910 and it appears it was done on the sly so as to get it for a cheap price.   My essay addresses this, but assumes that Barker did not include it in his plan, but I have since reconsidered this and now I am not so sure. 

I can send you more accurate dates of these various purchases if you want. 

I was going off of Evan's November 1910 letter to the membership where he used the word "acquired" in reference to the 338 acre tract.  From other references I inferred that it was acquired before July.  If it was only optioned in July, and purchased before November then I stand corrected.  You don't need to send the dates to me, but posting them here would help.  The more facts, the less conjecture.

 

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1217 on: June 04, 2009, 03:00:21 AM »
"Jim,

Maybe 15 pages ago, I summarized the purchase of the 338 acres.  Nobody has disputed this (yet).  The purchase seems to have occurred before July 1910 and seems to have included the Dallas Estate(see my timeline post).  But nothing stays the way it seems for very long here.

"In the beginning G_d created 338 acres from 5 different plots.  To provide one starting fact (I hope, think, conjecture, hypothesize .....) can we agree, that the 338 acres (not 330 as stated in the newspaper article, man, these guys were no better with numbers than we are) was comprised of:

Johnson Farm  140 137/1000 ac.

Dallas Estate    21 ac.

Taylor Estate    56 ac.

Davis Estate      58 ac.

Connor Estate   63 ac. (north of College, 67 ac. in 1908, but two plots totaling 4 ac. sold (speculation on my part) to Land Title and Trust Co. before 1913)

Total                338 137/1000 ac."







OH MY GOD!!!!
 
 
 



 ???


TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1218 on: June 04, 2009, 03:05:22 AM »
"I was going off of Evan's November 1910 letter to the membership where he used the word "acquired" in reference to the 338 acre tract.  From other references I inferred that it was acquired before July."


Why did you INFER that? What were the "other" references that led you to infer that?

Do you think they were the same kind of "other" ;) references that led Moriarty to INFER that Richard Francis was out there routing the golf course before anyone at MCC asked him or appointed him to do anything?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 03:08:45 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1219 on: June 04, 2009, 03:12:17 AM »
 "???"

Bryan:

If that little smiley response of yours on post #1298 was actually some kind of question of me on your part, I suppose the question of it from me was somethng like:

"OH MY GOD, does this man really have that much to learn?"
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 03:16:25 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1220 on: June 04, 2009, 07:44:05 AM »
Did Merion or HDC ever try to aquire the land along Ardmore Avenue above Dallas Estate marked as owned by Agnes Smith on the 1908 RR Map?   

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1221 on: June 04, 2009, 08:52:24 AM »
Tom,

Will this exercise prove anything more than Merion buying 3 acres somewhere along Golf House Road during the 7 months Lloyd was the technical bridge? Will it show exactly where? Will it have to have been by breaching the western boundary of the Johnson Farm?
Will your contention that this is "The Swap" completely counter the statements made by Richard Francis about the 15th green and 16th tee?

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1222 on: June 04, 2009, 09:11:30 AM »
"Did Merion or HDC ever try to aquire the land along Ardmore Avenue above Dallas Estate marked as owned by Agnes Smith on the 1908 RR Map?"


No. Merion did effect a land swap on that land later when it was known as the Eaton place. Land of 47'x323' behind the 2nd green was swapped for land of 78'x197' along the right side of the 6th hole on 10/22/12.

However, within the last ten years Merion did buy the remaining six acres of that land known then as the Wheeler property. 

TEPaul

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1223 on: June 04, 2009, 09:49:40 AM »
"Tom,
Will this exercise prove anything more than Merion buying 3 acres somewhere along Golf House Road during the 7 months Lloyd was the technical bridge?"

Sully:

What I believe this exercise will proves is the only area on the property that exchange and purchase could have taken place is along the extension of Golf House Road somewhere from Ardmore on the south to College on the North. The only way we can know exactly where (although it could've been a complete redelineation up and down the entire length of the road) would be to find one of those topo survey maps the Wilson Committee was using in the winter and spring of 1911 to route and design the course and compare the delineation on that contour survey map to the metes and bounds on the July 21, 1910 deed which is the way the road was built (the actual metes and bounds of Golf House Road are on the July 21, 1911 deed but obviously not on the Dec. 19, 1910 deed). I believe I realized that it was done by a redelineation of Golf House Road and put it on here over a year ago but this excercise I believfe proves it.

"Will it show exactly where?"

Again, not without comparing Golf House Road to one of those contour survey maps they were using in 1911 that had a road delineation on it which was clearly making the last five holes difficult to fit in as Francis said.
 

"Will it have to have been by breaching the western boundary of the Johnson Farm?"

Not necessarily but it might have in a few small places along Golf House Road. The exchange of land already purchased for land adjoining was just the giving back of as much land along the eastern side of the road that they didn't need for holes as they took on the western side of the road that they did need for holes. The purchase of 3 additional acres was simply 3 more acres on the western side of the road that they need for holes. The entire thing was reflected in the Thompson Resolution to the board on 4/19/1911 and it reflected the fix Francis suggested and got permission from Lloyd for. This can be determined because there were no other boundary adjustments made between Dec. 1910 and July 21, 1911 involving the golf course boundaries. The fact is the metes and bounds on the Dec. 1910 deed are absolutely identical to the July 21 deed from the starting point of the metes and bounds at College Ave until they get to a point in the center line at the corner of the Eaton Place and the middle of Ardmore Ave. (behind the 2nd green). From there you simply take out that entire 23 acre block of the old Johnson farm far down Ardmore Ave to the west and run the metes and bounds on the Juyly 21, 1911 deed straight down Ardmore Ave until you reach a point at the intersection at the middle of Golf House Road and Ardmore Ave. From there the metes and bounds of Golf House Road (on the July 21, 1911 deed) go north to the ending point next to the beginning point on College Ave. And that was the enclosure of the 120.1 acres of the July 21, 1911 deed that was three more acres than MCC agreed to buy even when Lloyd's Dec. 19, 1911 deed was conveyed to him for 161 acres. I believe when all the metes and bounds are measured it will show before the Francis swap there were app. 21 acres on the western side in that basic JW area on Bryan Izatt's post #1044 and when the swap and purchase was approved and reflected in the July 21, 1910 deed there were app. 18 acres in that JW area. So, Merion's property on the eastern side of the road in the top of the "L" increased by three acres from what it had been on the 1911 contour survey maps they were using in 1911. 


"Will your contention that this is "The Swap" completely counter the statements made by Richard Francis about the 15th green and 16th tee?"

Not at all. It seems pretty obvious the primary problem creating the difficulty fitting in the last five holes was caused by the fact that the delineation of the road on their contour survey maps was just too narrow to get the 15th green and 16th tee in there the way they are now. What Francis was obviously talking about is the dimensions of the solution in that area. I mean of course it is possible that the road delineation on their contour survey maps just took a dead right angle turn about 150 yards from the middle of today's 15th green and went straight east across the present fairways of #15 and #16 and then took another dead left turn and went up along the present left side of the 16th hole but that doesn't make much sense to me seeing as the "illustrative" Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED plan showed a form of a triangle anyway that was just much longer. We've agreed we shouldn't try to measure the "approximate road location" on that Nov. 15, 1910 PROPOSED land plan because it may not have been exactly drawn to scale but the delineation of the proposed road on their 1911 contour survey maps obviously was exacted as it had to enclose the 117 acres MCC agreed to buy.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 10:07:50 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: My attempt at the Timeline
« Reply #1224 on: June 04, 2009, 09:56:07 AM »
Tom,

Wouldn't the area marked "JW" be the same, even if they borrowed some more on the top, they gave back the same amount on the bottom, correct?

I guess the question comes down to finding those mysterious 3 acres they purchased, am I correct?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back