David, you stated:
Phillip wrote:
A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…”
What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
Not sure that it was the same committee in both cases, Phillip, or even if it was a committee in the first place.
Sorry David, but this is a case of you can’t have it BOTH ways. You have made a point of stating that we should go by what was written. Well, what was written here says that it WAS the same committee. “Your committee desires to report laying out many new golf courses on the new ground…” It is followed just a few lines later with, “"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
Once again then it is the SAME COMMITTEE who laid out many new courses, then went to NGLA and then came back and rearranged the course and then “LAID OUT five different plans…”
They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
Note that this also leaves open the possibility that they are staking out these courses based on someone else's plans. One need not have come up with the plan to stake out a golf course.
That is true, but where in what I wrote did I state that they had laid out THEIR OWN PLANS ONLY? Where does it even mention that they even laid out THEIR OWN PLANS AT ALL?
Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM!
I think you are confusing two things here. It could have been CBM who laid out one of the many courses on new land. While CBM and Whigham could not have staked out the five different plans, they could have provided the plans or at least helped create the plans that CBM gave them.
Sorry David, but once again, simply LOOK AT WHAT THEY WROTE! They “REARRANGED” the existing course they had left behind. THIS course could NOT have been done by CBM or Whigham or BARKER because even if we accept that the first course laid out was their’s, which I can’t based upon what was written, then what they left behind was distinctly different by their own words, “after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…” The course they left was one of these MANY DIFFERENT ONES!
Also, if we accept that the first course laid out was according to CBM & Whigham, we must ALSO ACCEPT THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE IT WHEN STAKED OUT! Why? Because they proceeded to then “lay out many different golf courses.”
Now as far as CBM and Whigham “providing the plans,” the plans FOR WHAT? It certainly couldn’t have been for variations on the plan they just REJECTED if the original one laid out was theirs. That you contend then that the COMMITTEE “could have helped create the plans that CBM gave them…” is also disingenuous on your part. First of all, if you are now saying that the Committee had the ABILITY to ADVISE CBM & WHIGHAM how can you possibly maintain that they DIDN’T have the ability to design the course on their own. In addition, your statement now is that they brought back with them golf course plans done by CBM during the meeting at NGLA? On what do you base that conclusion
Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.”Why do you require that they must have said something like this. I think it may be clear from the context that they were talking about CBM's plans. Whether either one of is correct, we are not Necessariliy so.
I don’t require it. I pointed out that they DIDN’T and that they made no mention of either rearranging the course they left behind nor laying out any of the five different plans based upon a single thing that CBM & Whigham said at NGLA.
Do I believe that CBM & Whigham gave them much to think about? YES! Do I believe these men on their journey back to Philadelphia talked and discussed what CBM & WHIGHAM had spoken with them about? DEFINITELY SO!
Do I believe that CBM & Whigham gave them plans for the course that had to be followed or even were suggested to be followed? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Why? Because there is not a single mention of that anywhere at all.
For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…
Phillip, I am surprised you'd come to this conclusion as if it were a NECESSARY conclusion, especially after warning us recently and repeatedly on not confusing fact with opinion. You state that the advice at NGLA "could NOT have been the final word . . . " Of course it could have been the final word, at least as to the plans that were laid out. M&W could have given them five different variations to stake out, so M&W could later inspect these options on the ground.
Also, you are reading to0 much into this paragraph.
1. Recall that the source is well less than reliable and has only provided us what he wants us to see. The reality is, we don't know what this paragraph consists of, or whether it is complete or accurate. In fact, it has internal inconsistencies and ommissions that suggest that it is PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE OR COMPLETE.
2. You base your conclusion on your observation that there was not "a mention of the 'plan that CBM just gave us' nor any mention of even, 'as he advised' . . .
- It is YOUR OPINION that the paragraph would have contained this language if CBM came up with the plan. It is by no means necessarily so.
- They had just mentioned going over CBM's plans, and these could be the plans to which they refer.
3. Lastly Phillip, you overlook the fact that the staking out of the five different plans was definitely NOT THE FINAL WORD. M&W returned to Merion to go over these five possible layouts and to chose the best one, possibly even altering it in the process. If you are looking for the final word, it was the plan determined by M&W that went to the board and was approved.
I completely agree with you that all of the above is simply MY OPINION. But then again, your disagreement with it is simply your own…