[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Your statement to Mike that, "Clearly Tilly did not follow the progress on the ground closely. He wrote next to nothing about it. His best source of information appears to be CBM. He does not mention anyone on the committee by name" CLEARLY has NO BASIS whatsoever in fact and your conclusions, ESPECIALLY that his "best source" of information "appears to be CBM"may be the most ridiculas thing that I have seen from you.

You clearly have not read his writings from that ime. You have made a habit of challenging others on this thread in the past asking them over and over why they won't answer a question of yours. The shoe is now on the other foot.

I asked you earlier, "Have YOU READ everything that Tilly wrote during that time period?" I ask it again. I now include this follow-up question. How Much of his writing during 1910-1912 have you read? For you to have drawn the conclusions that Tilly "didn't follow the progress on the ground closely" and that "his best source for information was CBM" needs far more than having read his "Hazard" articles. they are just a small portion of what he wrote.

[TEPaul]

"Its impossible to know for sure if they were saying he was responsbile for the architecturer in 1912 or 1926, but based on everything we know about the events of 1910-11, and his activities afterward when the course was overhauled, I believe 1926 is the most logical answer."


Tom:

I don't. I believe he was talking about the beginning and that's why he mentioned Macdonald/Whigam's contribution (M&W had no known or recorded architectural contact with MCC after April 6, 1911). That's why Alan mentioned the courses were "homemade" and an architect was not used. If Alan was talking about later in the teens and into the 1920s there is no way at all he would not have mentioned Flynn (and Toomey) and there would've been no real reason for him to talk to Wilson's committee members about what they did and Hugh did because by that time their job was long ago done and overwith even though Hugh Wilson's with Flynn sure wasn't.

You're stated belief above about what Alan was referring to just seems like another misinterpretation about Merion's history on your part because there is so much surrounding it and its people that you have never been familiar with and apparently still aren't. Alan did not serve on that committee because those brothers did not believe in serving on committees together including the USGA Green Committee and even the USGA board and they said so (the only thing I can see they served on together for long was the original Merion Cricket Club Golf Association which I believe they (with a few others were responsible for founding) but Alan was one of the most prominent and participatory members MCC had for over 35 years. Obviously you never knew that and of course I can understand why. It really does take a whole lot of time and participation to get to know a golf club intimately.

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course, there's also the fact that in Alan Wilson's letter to Philler, he says "You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history".  So, it's not impossible to know; in fact, it's quite obvious that he's writing about the course in 1912, not in 1926. But this is getting really silly, and I've been contributing to the silliness for too long.

Peter

[JESII]

Mike
If I'm not mistaken Tilly spoke to CBM while covering an event at Garden City. At the time Merion was being built Tilly was working on Shawnee, which may explain why he was at GCGC and why he did not actively report the progress at Merion. Isn't NYc is closer to Shawnee than Philadelphia? The interesting thing about his comments regarding the plans, he does not say when he saw the plans or where he saw the plans.

Is this your rationale for CBM being a more likely source? The distance from Shawnee to either Ardmore, PA or Garden City, NY? It seemed so moronic that I thought I'd find out. I mean a stab in the dark is fine, but you should expect a total wiff most of the time, no? There are limitless reasons for Tilly to be at GCM as opposed to Philadelphia at any given time, but being closer to Shawnee doesn't seem to be one of them...

[TEPaul]

Shiv:

Well, thanks for your honest answer on that even though I completely disagree with it. There's little question in my mind that when the club said experts are at work drawing up plans whether they named them or not it virtualy couldn't have been anyone other than Wilson and his committee because we know they were just appointed and frankly there just aren't any other candidates for who it could have been. Macdonald and Whigam and Barker weren't even in Philadelphia then so there really just aren't any other candidates for who MCC could've been referring to but that doesn't seem to concern some on here in what they call their search for the truth or the answers to the mystery or whatever.

There never has been any mystery about who designed Merion and these couple of rabid revisionists have done a pretty poor job of trying to make it look like there ever was one or that there is one.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I believe your response that Alan Wilson was asking the committee in 1926 for the reminisces of the golf course in 1926 is not intellectually honest.

Are you really trying to tell us that AW Tillinghast didn't know who designed Merion??

[TEPaul]

"Is this your rationale for CBM being a more likely source? The distance from Shawnee to either Ardmore, PA or Garden City, NY? It seemed so moronic that I thought I'd find out. I mean a stab in the dark is fine, but you should expect a total wiff most of the time, no?"


Tom:

That's actually a pretty good question from Sully along about now. There's not much question you've been basically batting about zero on this thread for the last few days and so I thought I'd just go ahead and ask you what might be a far more important question and by me even asking please do believe me I mean it in the very best way with the very best of intentions---I really mean that.

Are you OK? I mean are YOU really OK because if you're not I do realize that perhaps the last thing you'd probably want to do is admit it on this website but if your not OK I sure would like to know about it somehow because the very last thing I want to do is upset you somehow if you aren't OK.

I realize some of us take this stuff really serious but in the broad scheme of things this stuff is pretty far down there in importance.

Believe me I am definitely not trying to be rude or insulting or anything of the kind. I'm just wondering if we need to be more concerned about you personally and not with this stuff.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Reading through the last few pages and I keep thinking about the movie Pineapple Express which is surely destined to become a cult-classic on and around college campuses everywhere.  Has anyone seen it?   I don't want to give too much away, because it is a real nail biter, but in a number of scenes (all of them?) the characters are extremely stoned and are talking about all sorts of things in the way that usually only stoned people do.  Anyway, reading these threads leaves me with a hankering for a grape-orange-cherry-root beer-grape-lime Slushy and about 37 Oreo cookies.   Is it possible to get a contact high from reading posts on the internet?  
  

I think, if it were ever possible for all the facts to come out...we would all recognize that CBM was more influential than WE thought...but that is not to say he was more influential than MERION thought. Tom Paul makes an interesting suggestion about correcting what is in the Merion history books...what is in the Merion history books regarding CBM? What if it already acknowledges his role in full? I wouldn't expect it agrees with David's..."CBM was calling all the shots...", but it may well recognize the full scope of what we can agree on.

Jim, my Essay relies extensively on Tolhurst's discussion of the creation of Merion east in his excellent "Golf at Merion" and attempts to politely point out some (but not all) of the things about which Mr. Tolhurst was perhaps mistaken, and even provides what I think were viable explanations of how some of these errors may have innocently come about.   Apparently TEPaul is not familiar with my Essay or he wouldn't be repeatedly asking me to tell him where I think the histories fall short.

I am not presumptuous enough to think that Merion has any interest us "correcting what is in the Merion history books."    If Merion would like to know in greater detail where I respectfully think their previous books might fall short, I'd be glad to provide them that information, but they haven't asked so far as I know and I don't expect they will.   They are apparently quite content with the quality of research and analysis that TEPaul and Wayne have provided them throughout the years on these issues and I wish them the best with that.   But with TEPaul and Wayne misleading them about what really happened, why do they need us?

Plus Jim, even if we were to take on this uninvited role of editors for Merion, shouldn't we at least show enough courtesy and professionalism to base our opinions on the best available evidence?  

-- Yet here we have the ringleader of this latest great idea refusing to even verify the contents of the April 1911 minutes letter, or to explain why, as recently as yesterday he changed the wording of this supposed source material (again) to suit what seem to be his rhetorical purposes.  

-- And we have most of the rest of the posters who apparently don't even give a damn!

In short, I value intellectual honesty and integrity, and that means I cannot simply take TEPaul's representations as truth.  And so as long as TEPaul demands that we simply believe him when he dictates to us what happened at Merion, I want nothing to do with him or his Big Tent Circus attempt to close off conversation.  To beat Shivas to the punchline, this bearded lady will remain single.

I hope that clarifies things.  

Is this your rationale for CBM being a more likely source? The distance from Shawnee to either Ardmore, PA or Garden City, NY? It seemed so moronic that I thought I'd find out. I mean a stab in the dark is fine, but you should expect a total wiff most of the time, no? There are limitless reasons for Tilly to be at GCM as opposed to Philadelphia at any given time, but being closer to Shawnee doesn't seem to be one of them...

I haven't reviewed all the articles recently, but my impression is that CBM was AWT's primary source on what was ongoing at Merion, at least for the the crucial articles from the spring of 1911.  

What is the first evidence we have of AWT actually having stepped foot on the ground at Merion East?   When did he first write about seeing the course, either in progress or finished?  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Juat as Tom jumped to a very incorrect conclusion, you have as well:

"I haven't reviewed all the articles recently, but my impression is that CBM was AWT's primary source on what was ongoing at Merion, at least for the the crucial articles from the spring of 1911."  

That is simply incorrect.

As I've asked Tom to do, so I also do you, HAve you read ALL of Tilly's writings from 1910-1912? What writings do you base this conclusion on?

[TEPaul]

"To be perfectly frank, this whole Merion timeline/fact chain/storyline is so littered with inconsistencies, illogic and false facts (starting - but certainly not ending - with "Hugh Wilson went overseas first - when in fact it's been proven that he didn't) that the entire thing boils down to whose illogic and inconsitencies are least repugnant to one's intelligence."


Shiv:

Have you ever read the Merion Tolhurst history books? Other than the mistake in it already mentioned many times on here that Wilson went abroad in 1910 for seven months rather than in March/April of 1912 I don't see any mistakes or inconsistencies in it including Macdonald/Whigam's contribution in that early time.

To me that's pretty much the point or should be. All the rest of this stuff on these six years of Merion threads is all about some pretty inconsequential and trivial "noise", in my book. 

[DMoriarty]

To be perfectly frank, this whole Merion timeline/fact chain/storyline is so littered with inconsistencies, illogic and false facts (starting - but certainly not ending - with "Hugh Wilson went overseas first - when in fact it's been proven that he didn't) that the entire thing boils down to whose illogic and inconsitencies are least repugnant to one's intelligence.  

Careful Shivas, TEPaul insists that the ONLY thing Merion ever got wrong was the timing of the trip.  That statement alone justifies taking everything this guy says with a grain of salt.

[DAMN: I WANTED TO BE THE ONE TO PUT OUT TEPAUL'S FOOLISH BELIEF, BUT HE BEAT ME TO IT!]

_______________________________________________________

David,

Juat as Tom jumped to a very incorrect conclusion, you have as well:

"I haven't reviewed all the articles recently, but my impression is that CBM was AWT's primary source on what was ongoing at Merion, at least for the the crucial articles from the spring of 1911."  

That is simply incorrect.

As I've asked Tom to do, so I also do you, HAve you read ALL of Tilly's writings from 1910-1912? What writings do you base this conclusion on?

As I said, Phillip, I  haven't reviewed the articles lately,  but  I recall multiple articles from the spring of 1911 where CBM was AWT's explicit source (possibly all from the same conversation.)

If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources regarding Merion I'd love to see them.

Thanks.

As the resident AWT expert, perhaps you can answer my questions:

When did AWT write about first seeing the course, either in progress or finished?  

What is the first evidence we have of AWT actually having stepped foot on the ground at Merion East?  

Thanks again.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
If I'm not mistaken Tilly spoke to CBM while covering an event at Garden City. At the time Merion was being built Tilly was working on Shawnee, which may explain why he was at GCGC and why he did not actively report the progress at Merion. Isn't NYc is closer to Shawnee than Philadelphia? The interesting thing about his comments regarding the plans, he does not say when he saw the plans or where he saw the plans.

Is this your rationale for CBM being a more likely source? The distance from Shawnee to either Ardmore, PA or Garden City, NY? It seemed so moronic that I thought I'd find out. I mean a stab in the dark is fine, but you should expect a total wiff most of the time, no? There are limitless reasons for Tilly to be at GCM as opposed to Philadelphia at any given time, but being closer to Shawnee doesn't seem to be one of them...

Jim
No need to get upset, it was just a theory to explain why he didn't report much on Merion. In the May 1911 American Golfer it said (in Tilly's own column) Tilly had spent most of the last year devoted to work on Shawnee. Shawnee formally opened on May 27, 1911. Do you have a better theory?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Your statement to Mike that, "Clearly Tilly did not follow the progress on the ground closely. He wrote next to nothing about it. His best source of information appears to be CBM. He does not mention anyone on the committee by name" CLEARLY has NO BASIS whatsoever in fact and your conclusions, ESPECIALLY that his "best source" of information "appears to be CBM"may be the most ridiculas thing that I have seen from you.

You clearly have not read his writings from that ime. You have made a habit of challenging others on this thread in the past asking them over and over why they won't answer a question of yours. The shoe is now on the other foot.

I asked you earlier, "Have YOU READ everything that Tilly wrote during that time period?" I ask it again. I now include this follow-up question. How Much of his writing during 1910-1912 have you read? For you to have drawn the conclusions that Tilly "didn't follow the progress on the ground closely" and that "his best source for information was CBM" needs far more than having read his "Hazard" articles. they are just a small portion of what he wrote.

Maybe semantics are the root of our disagreement. When I say Tilly did not follow the progress I don't mean he wasn't interested in the project, I'm saying he did not file regular reports on the progress of the project. Which leads me to conclude he was around the project, like for example Pine Valley.

He reported in May 1911 that he had spent most of the last year on Shawnee. That is the same period Merion was designed.

I've read all his American Golfer articles from 1910-1912, his PL article in 1911 and the one article in American Cricketer. Merion was sown in September 1911 by the way.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You stated, "As I said, Phillip, I  haven't reviewed the articles lately,  but  I recall multiple articles from the spring of 1911 where CBM was AWT's explicit source. Sorry david, But there aren't any articles where CBM is Tilly's "explicit" source.

"If there are other articles from the spring of 1911 where AWT is explicitly or implicitly relying on other sources regarding Merion I'd love to see them." There are a number of them beginning with the December 1910 American Golfer “Hazard” article in which he “announces” the coming new course at Merion. It is quite clear that he hadn’t been given the information by CBM in the way he wrote of his & Whigham’s visit to see Griscom. He wasn’t present at the meeting or the day when they came to Philadelphia and evidently got this information from Griscom (a close friend) himself.

As the resident AWT expert, perhaps you can answer my questions:

When did AWT write about first seeing the course, either in progress or finished? I’ll have to look it up for you, but frankly it will take a while as I am swamped with work that will allow for precious little time on here for a bit.  

What is the first evidence we have of AWT actually having stepped foot on the ground at Merion East? [font=Verdana]No one can answer that because we don’t know. By the way, do you know how close Tilly actually lived to the new Merion? He could stop there any day that he slept at home. Because of his relationship with a number of the members including Board members it is silly to think that he never stepped foot on the property until he wrote that he did. His father also would have been out there in the normal course of his time as well. I will, though, when I get the time, look up for you the first time he mentioned that he had been there which, if memory serves me correctly, was in a newspaper article. [/font]  

[Tom MacWood]

Of course, there's also the fact that in Alan Wilson's letter to Philler, he says "You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history".  So, it's not impossible to know; in fact, it's quite obvious that he's writing about the course in 1912, not in 1926. But this is getting really silly, and I've been contributing to the silliness for too long.

Peter

I have you read the Allan Wilson's account? The fact that he had the story wrong regarding his brother going overseas and then coming back and designing the course, leads me believe he was confused and not talking about the original design. Hugh Wilson began changing the original design almost immediately after returning in 1912.

[TEPaul]

" Apparently TEPaul is not familiar with my Essay or he wouldn't be repeatedly asking me to tell him where I think the histories fall short."


David:

I’m sure you can’t believe how familiar I am with your essay. I’ve read it over and over again and not just back then, throughout the last year as well. I know some parts of it so well I almost have it down word for word.

Maybe I never told you this but I actually marvel at that essay. I think it is clever as hell and you probably must be too. I just marvel at how anyone can string together that many false premises, passed off as something even remotely close to fact, to come to the conclusions you do about a lot of Merion’s history and still be able to convince anyone that it makes any sense at all and isn’t just a whole string of tortured logic with false premises and fallacious reasoning to arrive at a few preconceived conclusions.

Over some time I came to realize that even as cleverly done as it is no one could get away with something like that unless their audience knew very little about the history of Merion and the details of it in the first place. In fact, that is and continues to be most of your audience on here.

But the ones who really know Merion recognized what that essay was in a day or two and that includes those from Merion itself who run the place and really do know the details of their history and the people who were involved.

I don’t know whether I ever told you this either but before it came out Wayne and I actually sort of built up the expectancy of it at Merion with some central people. We did that because we had no idea what you planned to say; we actually sort of believed you that you had some information previously unknown by Merion and of course you completely refused to let us see it before it was put on here (that alone says a lot of why we think you did it in the first place).

So when those some central people at Merion read it in the first few days they came back to us and said things like: “What are you two talking about? You said there were some really good researchers on Golfclubatlas. That essay is the biggest bunch of tortured logic imaginable and who in the world is this author? Are we supposed to know him? What has he ever known about us?”

Wayne and I were actually pretty embarrassed that we promoted it at all and then saw that thing, again of course never knowing what it was really about beforehand because you refused to show us anything about it beforehand which again says a lot about what you were doing and continue to do to this day.

No sir, the Tollhurst history books tell the accurate architectural history of Merion with pretty much the single exception of that Wilson trip in 1910 rather than 1912, and they explain Macdonald/Whigam’s contributions appropriately too.


And by the way, there are enough on here who saw through it immediately too. One of the best of them who actually participated for awhile was Bradley Anderson. He didn't get involved in the incessant arguing over all this minutiae which is probably something you promote so as not to have to deal with the larger truth of it. He just recognized pretty quick that the only way someone like you can maintain this kind of guise is to keep claiming that those that were there then and who saw it and reported it accurately were mistaken or engaging in hyperbole because their words almost never fit with your tortured logic so you just kept dismissing what they said and rationalizing it away someone. He recognized that one can only do that just so often without a logical mind smelling a rat and seeing the obvious.

No, it was clever, very clever and just about totally fallacious. We knew we'd probably never get you to admit that but what we wanted to do and I think have done is basically convince most of the rest of the audience what it really is.

Considering what-all else they cover about Merion's history other than architecture, for their size (which isn't great) other than that 1910 trip the Tolhurst Merion history books are historically and factually accurate. Too bad more on this website haven't had the opportunity to read at least one of them so they could see for themselves.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

I believe your response that Alan Wilson was asking the committee in 1926 for the reminisces of the golf course in 1926 is not intellectually honest.

Are you really trying to tell us that AW Tillinghast didn't know who designed Merion??

Mike
Allan Wilson was confused about the story. He apparently looked to the committeemen for some clarity. He still got a main part of the story wrong. No body knows for sure what he was referring to when he said he was responsible for the architecture. Wilson obviously did not route and design the original course, so I'm giving Allan the benefit of the doubt and leaning toward 1926.

I'm not sure what Tilly knew because he wrote so little about the course, and in particular the early development of the course, which is logical when you consider he was focused on Shawnee. He wasn't around.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

First of all his name is Alan Wilson, not Allan Wilson! You really pretty much are batting zero today on all counts. ARE YOU OK?

He was talking about the beginning, the routing and the design and construction and not the 1920s. That's why he talked to the men on Wilson's Committee since none of them were involved in the 1920s or even the middle teens on. They were only involved in the beginning. Around the mid teens on is when Flynn became involved with Hugh Wilson with the architecture of the Merion courses. I already told you that but as per usual you just totally dismissed and ignored it. That's what you do all the time. I guess that is the only way you could possibly be discussing this subject without appearing to be a complete fool to most people on this subject.

Also PeterP or Phil told you that when William Philler asked Alan to write what he did he asked him to write about the beginning. You completely ignored that incontestable fact too. Why do you do that all the time? Is it intentional diversion or perhaps the fact you really don't even read people's responses to you who know more about this stuff than you do?

I, for one, do not enjoy seeing you increasingly look foolish on these threads and you sure shouldn't want that either but that is what's increasingly happening here.

Did you answer me when I asked you if you're really OK? If so I must have missed it. I'll look back.

[Tom MacWood]

We need more Bradley Andersons like we all need more holes in our heads. His first comment after reading half of David's essay maybe the single rudest comment I've ever read on GCA, and thats saying something.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Is it me, or are they calling Tilly a  liar?

Sure sounds like it to me...this has entered a new realm of bizarre.

[TEPaul]

Well, Tom, with that last post as an example, I guess there never will be much of any agreement on anything between you and I.

But about a dozen more Bradley Andersons on this website and it would be better than it once was near the beginning when we really did have some spectacular people on here.

It seems like you and particularly Moriarty just take it so personally if and when someone just disagrees with the things you say and offers constructive criticism.

There is nothing rude or insulting about Bradley Anderson or about anything he said about that essay. He just has commonsense and a much better feel for the overall history of that time than I believe either or you two do or are willing to use and he just called a spade a spade. The author put that essay out there so what did he expect---some general consensus of that revisionism? Maybe you don't really live in the real world of these clubs like some of us do but that is the real world and that's the way it goes out there in the real world.

He even had the guts to say in his opinion after a while even the administrators of this site might find themselves and this site's participalnts less welcome too. I hate to think that but it really is becoming true and the reason for it on this website is pretty easy for people out there in those clubs to find and identify.

It's a damn shame really but once the ball gets slowly rolling in the wrong direction with certain things it can get pretty hard to stop it and turn it around.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
I'd still like a response to my xenophobia question.

[Joe Bausch]

I can't believe this thread is 80+ pages long, and it is nothing more than a continuation of my Findlay/Wilson thread and I hold you, M(erion)Cirba, personally responsible for keeping my name from being the longest discussion in GCA.com history!  

AWT first wrote for the Philadelphia Public Ledger beginning in April, 1911.  I have gathered up every article I could find off of microfilm and have a simple web page of said articles here:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/1911AWT/

He wrote for them, it appears, until late 1911.  He then moved on to the Philadelphia Press newspaper.  He wrote for PP for many years and I have nearly all of those articles in my possession (these have taken many hours to gather up from microfilm from the Free Library of Philadelphia).  I will attempt in the coming weeks to put together all these articles in digital form for perusal.  However, I seem to remember more than a couple of them included talk about the upcoming course at Merion.

(when this thread becomes more productive and less just rehashing old topics/bravado/insults, I might participate more).  

[TEPaul]

Dan:

What is the xenophobia question? Are you talking about that whole Schnecedety Putter fallout thing?

If that's what it is it may be worth a separate thread as it is a pretty fascinating subject. As for this one I think it's time for another walkabout for me. This one is going absolutely nowhere with these two guys and I really am worried if Tom MacWood is OK. A few of his last posts are almost unreadable and I don't mean as to point, I mean really UNREADABLE.

I do like that HHW thread though I must admit but the author of it as usual can't engage so it's become sort of a waste of time too.

Really Tom, are you OK? I sure hope I'm not sensing something prophetic here. You've been acting unusually strange today----honestly! I'm getting concerned. Send me an IM or email if you'd prefer that.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

First of all his name is Alan Wilson, not Allan Wilson! You really pretty much are batting zero today on all counts. ARE YOU OK?

He was talking about the beginning, the routing and the design and construction and not the 1920s. That's why he talked to the men on Wilson's Committee since none of them were involved in the 1920s or even the middle teens on. They were only involved in the beginning. Around the mid teens on is when Flynn became involved with Hugh Wilson with the architecture of the Merion courses. I already told you that but as per usual you just totally dismissed and ignored it. That's what you do all the time. I guess that is the only way you could possibly be discussing this subject without appearing to be a complete fool to most people on this subject.

Also PeterP or Phil told you that when William Philler asked Alan to write what he did he asked him to write about the beginning. You completely ignored that incontestable fact too. Why do you do that all the time? Is it intentional diversion or perhaps the fact you really don't even read people's responses to you who know more about this stuff than you do?

I, for one, do not enjoy seeing you increasingly look foolish on these threads and you sure shouldn't want that either but that is what's increasingly happening here.

Did you answer me when I asked you if you're really OK? If so I must have missed it. I'll look back.

We will just have agree to disagree. A couple of things are obvious, Allan did not have first hand knowledge and he was confused by what people told him. In particular he was confused by the trip to the UK, he was under the impression he went there first in 1910 and on his return designed the course. Today, now knowing Wilson did not go until 1912 his story looks pretty bad, but actually I don't think he was that far off. What they likely told him was that Wilson went overseas in 1912 and on his return he began implementing his architectural ideas, the mid-surrey mounding for example. And that process continued for the remainder of his life and in the end the architecture in the main was his.

PS: Batting zero. I know I have at least one hit for my correction of your theory that Wind was simply regurgitating what he read in club histories. In fact I've corrected a few historical inaccuracies. I also deserve special credit for the January 11 date being corrected. I've been telling Bryan for a while now you never said that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()