[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

on what date did 1ilson write that he had completed the first trearment of the fairways and greens?

[Tom MacWood]

Regarding the contour map that Wilson sent Piper of 2/1/1911, is it logical to believe Wilson would send him a blank map of the property and blindly ask him which sections of the property he would like samples for testing? What would he expect Piper to do, put the map up on a dart board and begin throwing? Round and round we go and where ever the dart lands that's a sample I'd like.

Wilson was inexperienced, but he was bright enough to know Piper needed to know where the fairways and greens were in order to know where to take samples.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not home at present but I'm only asking questions.

Doesn't your essay presently include info found by Joe Bausch subsequent to your initial publication of your essay or am I mistaken?

In answer to your repeated response "why would I?", I would think an objective analysis or at least one trusting the readwr with all of the information would certainly dictate inclusion of all relevant information, even if it couldn't easily be expained such as the discrepancies in acreage of a to-scale Land Plan, particularly aas regards the triangle that you used as physical evidence to convince your readers while apparently knowing it was only about 75 pct as wide as Francis indicatwd he swapped for and almost twice as long.

I would think those points were very relevant to the fact-finding.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

on what date did 1ilson write that he had completed the first trearment of the fairways and greens?

I'll send you the letters between 2/1 and 4/19 and you can post them. We'll let everyone read them and come to their own conclusions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom.

Why wouldn't Wilson just send samples from areas he was concerned about?

How many samples did Piper request and how many did Wilson send?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
You said this letter went out in January, do you know when in January?



Mike/Joe B
This article was posted a few days ago. Do you know the date of the article, and what paper?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I'm not home at present but I'm only asking questions.

Not so Mike.  You were trying to imply that I had treated the source material disingenuously.  You even had the nerve to compare my essay to the kind of shenanigans that TEPaul so often has pulled here. 

I've had it with you repeatedly implying that I have done anything underhanded.  You have been singing this same bullshit song since before my essay came out, and it has been without basis the whole time.  Grow up Mike, and face the facts.   And quit blaming your own inabilities, failings, errors, gullibility and disingenuous interpretations on me.

Doesn't your essay presently include info found by Joe Bausch subsequent to your initial publication of your essay or am I mistaken?

No, it does not.  You obviously are just making up stupid and nonsensical garbage yet again.

In answer to your repeated response "why would I?", I would think an objective analysis or at least one trusting the readwr with all of the information would certainly dictate inclusion of all relevant information, even if it couldn't easily be expained such as the discrepancies in acreage of a to-scale Land Plan, particularly aas regards the triangle that you used as physical evidence to convince your readers while apparently knowing it was only about 75 pct as wide as Francis indicatwd he swapped for and almost twice as long.

I would think those points were very relevant to the fact-finding.

My essay was MY analysis, do your own if you don't like it. (Yeah right.)

[Tom MacWood]

The letters have been sent to Mike and Joe, and hopefully one of them can post them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I know we both flared up there and I am sorry for my part.  Let's continue the debate, if you wish, on a more civil basis while we celebrate the freedoms we have in this country to participate in such debate.

Jeff,

Last night while I was  watching the fireworks with family and friends I thought about how lucky we are to be in America and how lucky we are to have our health.  It's too bad that our passions crossed into the red zone.

Like you, I meant no harm, am sorry that I flared and welcome civil, yet passionate if not heated discussions/debates in the future.

They're part of what makes this site so special.

So, let's continue the friendly discourse, with a few barbs here and there.


To all, happy fourth of July!


Same to all,  and their families.

[Bryan Izatt]

I think somebody asked you the date of this letter already.  If not, let me ask.

Who do you suppose they were referring to when they said there are "experts are at work preparing plans for a Golf Course ..........."?  Would they be selling Wilson et al as experts in the interests of selling the increase in dues?

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

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

If I recall correctly, a press report (Inquirer I think) from around January 6, 1911 apparently regurgitated some of the information from this letter, so this announcement probably came from before then.   But surely we ought to have an exact date.

As I say in my paper, if MCC was calling Wilson et al. "experts" at planning golf courses, it was pure hyperbole.   The only experts that had been involved up to that point were Barker, Macdonald, and Whigham.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I'll look at this more closely to update my timeline, but I had one point near the bottom I wanted to clarify.

Bryan
In response to your question in post 2277. When I originally read the 11/24 article I wondered the same thing, but after comparing it to the articles on or around 11/14 I found the information is quite different.

The earlier articles refer to the 130 acres and the total of 350 acres. The earlier article mentions Lloyd had the property inspected by Macdonald, Whigham and Barker. There is no separate mention of Barker. We have no idea if we have three distinct experts or one group. The earlier articles also mention no effort/money will be spared, and leave the impression the goal will be a course to rival GCGC or Myopia. And last but not least they say work will begin at once.

The 11/24 article mentions the individuals involved within the syndicate: Lloyd, Atterbury, Griscom. Lelsey and Huston. Those names do not appear in the previous articles or 11/15 MCC report. The 11/24 article goes into the arrangement at the old course, the breakdown of acres owned by PRR and those owned by Griscom. It mentions the annual rent paid to the PRR ($800). It mentions 117 acres as opposed to 130 acres. It has the accurate purchase price and cost per acre (unlike the earlier articles). It joins Macdonald with Whigham and segregates them from Barker. It mentions that Barker is the former Irish Am champion, which is not mentioned in the previous articles or the MCC report. The information in this article came from a very knowledgeable inside source within MerionCC. The dateline of Lakewood, NJ may be a clue - Lesley was a member of the golf club at Lakewood.

The one fact that continually gets brushed aside (along with inability to explain why Wilson would be selected to design the course) is the consistent drum beat that work will commence immediately. There must be half a dozen different reports in November that say work will begin immediately, and that no effort will be spared.

Regarding your timeline I don't believe the 1/11/1911 date for the formation of the Wilson committee is accurate. That comes from Jeff B. who said it came from TEP. I think they may have gotten their wires crossed. TEP has always maintained the minutes do not mention when the committee was formed, in fact he has said the minutes never refer to Wilson's committee by name. The earliest documented action of Wilson's committee is the letter to Piper dated 2/1/1911.

Why did you change the April 19, 1911 entry? Didn't you originally have information about the timing of CBM's 2nd visit to MCC and a quote about him making the final selection?  To be honest I'm not sure if I changed that item or not.  I did split it into two items.  But, I was thinking about CBM making the final decision on the plans when I was reading over David's new thread.  David states it as a hard fact, but I've lost sight of what document that that conclusion is based on.  If you, or David can point me at the document, and it's clear then I'll put it in.

If Joe or Mike don't post the P&O letters, send them to me and I'll post them.  As I recall, Mike has said that one of the letters Wilson sent to Piper included mention of 117 acres.  Is that letter included in the ones you want posted?

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
Yes, the 117 acres is in the first letter dated 2/1/1911. What is your email address?

The info regarding CBM making the final decision comes from TEP. I'm not sure I would call anything coming from TEP a hard fact but its the best we have for now.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Are you going to answer my five questions?

Perhaps now you that we've been derailed from any productive discussion with more goose chases you can see why this has become such a frustrating exercise in complete futility for me that I'm going to wrap up my participation today, and would really hope to hear your perspective on those questions.

Thanks.

 

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
If the letters will be distracting post them on a separate thread.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

It,s not the letters; it's the lack of focus.

Some of us were trying to deternine whether the evidence supported the Francis Swap happening before or after November and comparing theories as to how they stood up to the known factual data.

[JESII]

Mike,

Why can't you just go through the exercise with me? Bryan is clearly focussing on other things right now, and besides he has said a couple times that he still has no theory so he may not be able to anwer your questions at all.  His efforts have seemingly been to find the factual basis in each piece of information...and you think your job has been frustrating...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I'll respond today to your answers and I think we can wrap things up pretty quickly.

Did you read the synopsis of my conversation with TP?

[JESII]

I did, and you might want to ask him how to respond to this...if there was no "definite" course on the ground, and "definite" is described as "having clearly defined, distinct, explicit limits"...I'd be curious how we are not moving closer and closer to my theory that the course was routed to the extent they knew #1 was going out into that corner and #15 was going up into the triangle and #16 back down prior to the creation of the November 15 Land Plan...

Not only does "definite" have a clear and non-arbitrary meaning, but we also have to assume that the guy using it knew what it was...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I think you're reading into that statement things that aren't intended.

"Defining" a golf course IS laying it out within clear dimensions, bounds, and limits, is it not?

Whether done in a paper routing or staked and or built on the ground, the act of creating a golf course infers definition, or a "definite" course.

I'm not sure how you are contending that Cuyler telling us no course had been defined and recommending Lloyd make purchase to shift boundaries later as needed when the course routing actually took place is some evidence that a routing already existed?

I think it shows the exact opposite, Jim.

[JESII]

In either interpretation, the statement that there is no final formalized course is clear...what we've long argued is that there either was or was not a routing in place that would need to be constructed to determine the final "definite" boundary for the road if the idea was for the golf course to buy as little land as they ultimately needed for their course so the net could be sold as real estate.

To leap from "no definite course" to 'no inkling of a course' is a stretch...

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim.

I don't agree at all.

Cuyler was offering a legal opinion as related to a real estate transaction.

Therefore, if he said "there is no golf course yet" the statement would have been had no meaning, although true in a literal sense.

He was referring simply to the only boundary of the secured land that wasn't already pre-determined by a historical boundary; the western edge of the northeastern section of Johnson Farm.

[JESII]

I guess that's why this stuff has gone on as long as it has...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

As your last official act before leaving your own thread, perhaps you could take my name out of the title thread. I have always been uncomfy with it in there, and especially since there has been no untying of any knot!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

As your last official act before leaving your own thread, perhaps you could take my name out of the title thread. I have always been uncomfy with it in there, and especially since there has been no untying of any knot!

Jeff,

Done.

Thanks for trying to help, at least. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()