[Joe Bausch]

Below is the May, 1897 article called "Golf" by Whigham (also in Scribner's Magazine).  Thanks Kirk!

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob C - you mentioned the difference between Whigham's earler writings and his later ones.  I assume the differences reflect changing ideas in the golf world as a WHOLE. I also assume that these changes were "over-determined" -- i.e. while they could have come about through even ONE bit of influential writing or example of golf course architecture, there were SEVERAL bits of writings and examples of gca coming together all at once in a fin de siecle kind of way. What do you think? 

Jim K - if you're comfortable sharing it, I'be be curious to know what (who) you got so wrong way back in 1969?! 

Peter

[TEPaul]

"Bad theory.  To the best of my knowledge, we're not even from the same country."


HenryE:

Thank you muchly for that. Yes, then, bad theory on my part. Very refreshing to know that. What country are you in? If it's not in a land known as Ivory Tower, then you would not be in the same country as, as, as.....Oh, give me a week, the name will come to me by then.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peter,
Shoulda' used a smiley.    It's just a joke, and '69 was an arbitrary pick.



p.s. ......although I did have a fleeting thought about buying a used Corvair in '69.
 

[DMoriarty]

Joe,

Thanks for posting that article and thanks to Kirk for supplying it to them, and Kirk thanks again for sending me copies of these articles about a year ago.   I thought we had discussed them on here, but maybe it was through IMs.

I haven't double checked but I think the chapter just posted was very similar or the same to the Chapter in Whigham's book.

Kirk, I would love a copy.  And if you desire, I can host it on my site and make it available on this thread for all to read.

Do we know if these are the only two articles written by 'Chief Wiggum' in Scribner's?

Joe
----------------

Joe,   HJ Whigham was among other things a writer, editor, theater critic, and war correspondent. So there are many other articles, in Scribners and elsewhere.   There are more articles touching on golf as well, although I do not know how many were in Scribners.  These include  a comparison of the Americans and British when it comes to golf, and  the articles he wrote with Macdonald for Golf Illustrated, and more.   

He was really an incredible figure across a number of fields, which makes it all the more insane the kind of treatment he has received around here, with the caricatures and mockery and the like.   In fact I believe that this horrid treatment was what motivated Kirk Gil to find these articles in the first place.   If I recall correctly he couldn't quite believe that these guys could possibly have been talking about the same H.J. Whigham with whom he was familiar.

I didn't know much about him, but have looked into him quite a bit.  The more I learn about this man, the more I realize how impressive he was.  Sure, he didn't own a railroad or a shipping company, or rule Wall Street or whatever Philadelphia thinks is the Philadelphia equivalent, but his writing demonstrated an incredible intellect and a sophisticated and multifaceted understanding of just about whatever subject he addressed.   And he wasn't a party line cheerleader.  Whether it be about CB Macdonald, British rule, or even the battles, he articulately covered strengths and weaknesses of his subjects.  For example, in the first few years of the 20th century he presciently wrote about the sense of superiority that the British felt over their subjects, and the insurmountable barrier this created:

This imperial aloofness constitutes the weakness as well as the strength of British rule in India.  It enables them to govern admirably, though somewhat coldly; But it condemns them to remain perpetual strangers in the land  -- in it but not of it.  The British are feared and respected, but they are not loved.

"I wish sometimes,"  said a Hindu, wistfully, 'that you would govern us a little less justly and would call us brothers now and then."

Here is another article, from May 19, 1906, not by Whigham but about Whigham's travels playing golf.   It seems that Mr. Whigham was a bit like our own Mr. Huntley when it comes to life experience with golf. 



I'd hate to track down the shipping manifests on that guy.  I wonder if the "Mr. Macbeth of Liverpool" who beat Whigham in India was Norman Macbeth, the eventual designer some nice courses in Los Angeles?

Anyway, Whigham had a long career as a professor, war reporter, theater and art critic, successful editor, and an expert on foreign policy.  He was a war correspondent for the Chicago Tribune in the Spanish American War until he was as was imprisoned and then expelled.  (This, by the way, was after he had won consecutive US Amateur Golf Championships.)   He covered the Boer war, and wrote extensively on India, Russia, the Far East, South Africa and Latin America.  He wrote on domestic issues and comparative politics, such as a comparison of "New Deal" programs in the United States and Great Britain, art, architecture, and literature.  He advised Presidents and Prime Ministers. 

As for golf design, he was obviously right there with Macdonald, and I am told the may have played a larger role in courses like Piping Rock than has previously been suggested, but insisted that he not get any credit because as he was a member he felt that taking credit would be inappropriate. 

This history is why it  infuriates me when I even think about how this man has been caricatured, attacked, mocked, and maligned over the years on this website.   And all for the sleazy purpose of undermining his credibility, so that no one will believe him when he states with great knowledge and authority that CB Macdonald designed Merion.   What kind of a person would try to tear down a man like Whigham for the sole purpose of propping up the reputation of someone else.    No doubt Hugh Wilson would have never stooped so low, so why do Mike, TEPaul, and others?

I mean come on, right here in this thread we have Mike Cirba still calling him a liar and blatantly misrepresenting Whigham's writing to try and justify the spurious insult.  At least he has dropped the adjective "f**king" but the point is the same.   

As bad or worse, we have TEPaul claiming that he would have shouted down HJ Whigham at CB Macdonald's funeral?  Given my experience with TEPaul, I wouldn't put it past him, especially after a drink or two.  But he claims ALL OF YOU would have joined him?  I doubt it.

Who the hell is TEPaul to to even contemplate down H. J. Whigham about anything whatsoever?   Who the hell is Mike Cirba to call him a "f**king liar?"   And both without any real factual basis for doubting him.  They are a couple of narrow minded partisans who will do and say anything to protect their legend, even if it means trashing the reputations a great man like H.J. Whigham or anyone else, dead or alive, who stands in their way.
_________________________

Joe Bausch,

Thanks again for posting this article, and for helping demonstrate what disingenuous creeps your friends have become over this Merion issue.    By far you have been one of my greatest allies in all of this mess.  Keep up the good work!

________________________________________

Bob C - you mentioned the difference between Whigham's earler writings and his later ones.  I assume the differences reflect changing ideas in the golf world as a WHOLE. I also assume that these changes were "over-determined" -- i.e. while they could have come about through even ONE bit of influential writing or example of golf course architecture, there were SEVERAL bits of writings and examples of gca coming together all at once in a fin de siecle kind of way. What do you think? 

Peter,

I disagree.   With most fundamental change, there are a few leaders and the vast majority is trailing far behind.  Whigham's was one of the leaders when he wrote his first article, and was still one if the leaders with this one.  Like it or not, when it came to golf course architecture, he and CBM were the two major early catalysts for change.    Sure there were others, such as Travis, and some like AWT who may have already been on the right track but who were not yet as influential.  But on this side of the ocean I don' think anyone's reach influence extended as far as CBM's and Whigham's, this was especially so because of NGLA. 

[Peter Pallotta]

David - I was thinking more in "cross-Atlantic" terms. I wouldn't disagree with you that CBM was the most influential catalyst here in America (I don't know enough about Whigham to comment) -- but it was Bob's point that Whigham's own thinking had changed over a ten year period that triggered my question, i.e. who and what was the catalyst for Whigham's evolution in thought. I'm thinking of maybe the work of someone like Colt, or (more broadly) the ideas/types of people who'd responded/contributed to CBM's survey of the great British golf holes. There was something bubbling under the surface during the turn of the century, ready to bring about dramatic change -- that's what I meant by over-determined.

Peter

[BCrosby]

"I disagree.   With most fundamental change, there are a few leaders and the vast majority is trailing far behind.  Whigham's was one of the leaders when he wrote his first article, and was still one if the leaders with this one.  Like it or not, when it came to golf course architecture, he and CBM were the two major early catalysts for change.    Sure there were others, such as Travis, and some like AWT who may have already been on the right track but who were not yet as influential.  But on this side of the ocean I don' think anyone's reach influence extended as far as CBM's and Whigham's, this was especially so because of NGLA."

I disagree with your disagreement. Circa 1897 Whigham was not saying anything particularly original. He was not a pioneer. There were lots of people writing about gca at the time, including Garden Smith, Hutchinson, MacPherson, Park, Emmet, Travis, Leach, Braid, Taylor and others. Whigham was saying much the same things they were saying about gca. There was a fascinating loose consensus at the time about things like the function of hazards (put them where they will catch foozles), the importance of naturalism (everyone was pretty much for it) and other issues. There were no opposing design schools fighting for hearts and minds.

The ideas that we would call today "strategic gold architecture" evolved later, after the turn of the century. CBM had role in that, but mostly in the US. Whigham also had a small part.

John Low (and to a lesser extent Paton) was much a more important than either CBM or Whigham to the articulation of such ideas. That was what Darwin and Simpson thought. And they were there and knew everyone. From the distance of some 100 years later, I agree with them. To get a flavor of Low's original take on things, reread his chapter on gca in Concerning Golf (1903). To paraphrase Stonewall Jackson, Low was there the firstest with the mostest. Somebody ought to write an essay....

Whigham, like Hutchinson, was a man of wide interests and great energy. Full points for that. But he was not a significant factor in the evolution of golf design concepts in 1897 or later.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Peter and Bob,

I was referring to influence in America    I believe in 1987 Whigham was very influential in the United States.  He was our National Champion, and was familiar with and writing about a different approach to golf than was taken here.   He and CBM were also extremely influential in 1909, and in between.  No doubt the European figures are extremely important, but as I said above, I was referring to influence in America.     In 1909 most of American golf was lagging far behind in terms of their understanding of sophisticated strategic concepts.   

Hard to ignore CBM's influence on his views, and probably visa versa.   Whigham dedicated his 1897 book to CBM "Who has done more than anyone else to promote the best interests of golf in America. 

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood sent me this cool photo from Golf Illustrated from 1902, of some of those competing in the tournament that Whigham mentioned above. 



It was Norman Macbeth that beat Whigham in the Indian Open.    Pretty talented crew.   The 1902 Indian Championship may have been more competitive than some early US Championships

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Are you still trying to draw me into this?

Great man...great golfer...cool article...interesting to see the evolution in thought.

He told a lie.   Or let's be politcally correct.   He told a gross over-exaggeration.

He was human.

Get over it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

How do you know that he told a lie, afterall, he was there, and you weren't

[Kirk Gill]

David, while I think some of the "dissing" of HJW on this board has been in jest, he does certainly deserve to be remembered with respect. In my opinion, calling him a liar is something he doesn't deserve. He was an all-around impressive individual. I believe I said to you in one of my IM's to you over time that his eulogy for Macdonald is to me the single most impressive bit of evidence of Macdonald's design influence at Merion that I've seen, no disrespect intended.

He wrote those words when he was 70 years old (he would live for 15 more), and certainly in possession of his faculties. He meant what he said. He was a journalist. He knew the meaning of words. He was, without doubt, there. Could he, for the occasion, been exaggerating (after all, by that time Merion had hosted a US Open, and might be considered more prestigious than any other course with which Macdonald was involved)? Is there room in his comments for Merion's design to be attributable to others as well? Is the documentation created by and in the possession of the club as much first-person evidence as anything that Whigham might say? Possible. But you can't dismiss the man just because he said what he said.

[DMoriarty]

Kirk,

You are absolutely right, he does deserve to be remembered with respect.  As for whether the disrespect was in jest, sure they think they are funny, but there has always been a point to it--  they denigrate him because is words threaten their story.   I never would of course, but imagine had I or anyone else mocked and insulted Hugh Wilson the way they have Whigham and Macdonald.  I doubt they'd see it in jest, whether or not I meant to be funny. 

I believe I said to you in one of my IM's to you over time that his eulogy for Macdonald is to me the single most impressive bit of evidence of Macdonald's design influence at Merion that I've seen, no disrespect intended.

No disrespect taken.  He was there and I wasn't.  You ought to be a hell of a lot more impressed by what he said than by what anyone here says.
 

Could he, for the occasion, been exaggerating (after all, by that time Merion had hosted a US Open, and might be considered more prestigious than any other course with which Macdonald was involved)?

This seems very unlikely to me, and requires a gross overestimation of the relative importance of Merion as compared to CBM's other accomplishments.  This was Charles Blair Macdonald, and Merion was but a blip on a very long list of incredibly impressive accomplishments.  Would Whigham put both his and CBM's reputations at issue by making such a claim if it were not true?   Do you think he was half expecting one of TEPaul's ancestors to stand up and shout him down for his lie?  Impossible.

As for Merion's tournament record, Whigham knew that Macdonald didn't look to tournaments to determine his worth as a designer -- NGLA hosted a single professional exhibition tournament and the first Walker Cup, but no other similar tournaments.  So I doubt either waoverwhelmed by the tournaments.   Same goes for the course itself; as both CBM and Whigham viewed inland courses as not ideal. 

Is there room in his comments for Merion's design to be attributable to others as well?

Definitely.  The passage in question came at the tail end of a description of Raynor's role and CBM's increasing distance from the day to day design process.   While in Merion's case it was the committee instead of Raynor, the description fits equally as well.   

Is the documentation created by and in the possession of the club as much first-person evidence as anything that Whigham might say? Possible.

We don't know, do we?  We haven't been allowed to know just what is in those club documents.    But so far as what has been revealed, nothing contradicts Whigham on this issue, and a number of things corroborate it.   

But you can't dismiss the man just because he said what he said.

I agree.

[Mike_Cirba]

This seems very unlikely to me, and requires a gross overestimation of the relative importance of Merion as compared to CBM's other accomplishments.  This was Charles Blair Macdonald, and Merion was but a blip on a very long list of incredibly impressive accomplishments. 

"Don't worrry Sir, I won't let them forget that blip on your accomplishments.   After they're all dead and gone, I'll let everyone know!!"

[BCrosby]

Isn't the better take on Whigham that you should be sceptical of funeral orations?

We have all heard them. Most of the time I barely recognize the person they are describing. That's not lying. That's just giving a funeral oration. Their main point is not truth telling. They have other aims.

Bob

P.S. At no point was Whigham more than a marginal figure in the history of golf architecture. He was a more important figure in the game itself. He could play, apparently.

[TEPaul]

“As for golf design, he was obviously right there with Macdonald, and I am told the may have played a larger role in courses like Piping Rock than has previously been suggested, but insisted that he not get any credit because as he was a member he felt that taking credit would be inappropriate.”


H.J. Whigam belonged to Piping Rock, did he David Moriarty? That is extremely interesting to me! Really interesting for reasons I’ll explain later. What’s the chance you can actually document the accuracy of that? Is the chance pretty good or slim to none?




“This seems very unlikely to me, and requires a gross overestimation of the relative importance of Merion as compared to CBM's other accomplishments.  This was Charles Blair Macdonald, and Merion was but a blip on a very long list of incredibly impressive accomplishments.  Would Whigham put both his and CBM's reputations at issue by making such a claim if it were not true?   Do you think he was half expecting one of TEPaul's ancestors to stand up and shout him down for his lie?  Impossible.”


‘This was CHARLES BLAIR MACDONALD, and Merion was but a blip on the very long list of incredibly impressive accomplishment…..’


Hmmm!? What does David Moriarty really know about Charles Blair Macdonald?? I guess he knows what he’s read in books and magazines and newspapers? Does he know any more about him than just that? Do you David Moriarty, and if so why and how could that be? And what do you really know about H.J. Whigam? What do you know about what I think of Whigam?

I sure do admit I’ve tried to write what I thought was some pretty funny satire about Macdonald and Whigam. I’ve done the same with Hugh Wilson too. I’ve even done it about myself and my family. Apparently, some don’t see the humor or irony in it; most assuredly you don’t! I guess I should cut it out on here because it does seem too many don’t get the humor and take it the wrong way. Me disrespecting Macdonald and Whigam? You have no earthly idea, that’s for damn sure.

Do I think H.J. Whigam was half expecting one of my ancestors to stand up and shout him down for his lie (about what he said in a eulogy about Macdonald, and I'm surely not saying and have never said he lied about that because I have no idea what he was thinkng)? No, I don’t think that is likely at all since he was apparently a good friend of some of my ancestors.

Not long ago I spoke to a lady who is in the MET Golf Hall of Fame as one of the best amateur golfers and champions of New York in the last century. She happens to be the quite younger sister of my mother’s best friend in life (who was killed in the famous Jamaica Bay plane crash in Long Island around 1960).

So I said to her; “I realize you knew a ton of people with all your many sports and athletic accomplishments particularly around New York; did you know H.J. Whigam?”

She said; “Of course I did, I knew him very well for many years.” I asked her if she ever knew Charles Blair Macdonald and she said she certainly did when she was young and a very avid golfer all over Long Island. She said the last decade or more of the end of his life was considered to be quite tragic to those who had known him. I asked her what that meant (and I’ll explain that later).

I asked her if she knew if my parents knew H.J. Whigam, and she said: “Tommy, don’t you remember Mr. Whigam? He was at Valentine Farm a number of times for dinner or whatever; I can’t remember now if it was your parents or grandparents who knew him best; probably your grandparents since Harold Weeks (my step-grandfather) had been such a well known all around sportsman----there were lots of people like that around like Knott, Grant, the Choates who of course were younger; I remember he liked you and your sister and Herman and Charlie but you were probably too young to remember.”

No kidding! There has always been something strange to me looking at photographs of H.J. Whigam; to me he looked so much like Jimmy Knott who was the only older man in my young life I had some real issues with and he was a really prominent member of NGLA, that’s for sure.

Like a lot of us on here I’m pretty fixated on the real truth of history, what actually happened, warts and all, and not some sanitized and glorified version of history and the people who were prominent in it that we talk about on here.

So, David Moriarty, I am going to renew my efforts to point out on this website every single time you try to foist on us what you think are facts about these people just because it happens to be YOUR INTERPRETATION of something!  You have a very odd way of just throwing some OPINION or INTERPRETATION of yours out there and then in a day or so you try to make it look like it’s an actual fact.

It may be hard for you to understand but I actually despise historical revisionism of that type on here more than I despise you. Next time don’t try to tell ME what I THINK of people I actually KNEW!

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, Moriarty, I definitely meant and mean no disrespect at all to H.J. Whigam and what he did or said at any time, but when I see you accuse us of disrespecting Whigam to promote Hugh Wilson, I'm afraid I'm going to come after you again totally comprehensively about the snide and truly disrespectful things you have said on here about Hugh Wilson's brother, Alan Wilson, including what he wrote for a history writer of Merion about his brother's part in the architecture of Merion East and West including what the men on Hugh's committee said about that.

You have said on here that Whigam was there at Merion and therefore he should have known what went on back then. Sure he was there, for what---a grand total of TWO DAYS over ten MONTHS. After that perhaps years later he may've come back to watch a tournament or whatever.

So what about Alan Wilson?? He was there constantly throughout all those years his brother who he worked with every day did all that he did. Who in the hell do YOU THINK was in a better position to know what really happened, Whigam or ALAN WILSON, a man who was frankly a whole lot more impressive person in golf than Whigam? If you get that one wrong again Moriarty you truly are the idiotic historical revisionist I see you to be on this website!

[DMoriarty]

Isn't the better take on Whigham that you should be sceptical of funeral orations?

We have all heard them. Most of the time I barely recognize the person they are describing. That's not lying. That's just giving a funeral oration. Their main point is not truth telling. They have other aims.

Bob,

Contrary to TEPaul's fantasies about rudely disrupting CBM's funeral, this was not a "funeral oration."   It was a professionally written obituary published in a national magazine.  Among the others authored and published by Whigham was his obituary and remembrance of Theodore Roosevelt. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

H.J. Whigam belonged to Piping Rock, did he David Moriarty? That is extremely interesting to me! Really interesting for reasons I’ll explain later. What’s the chance you can actually document the accuracy of that? Is the chance pretty good or slim to none?

I'd be glad to document it, but not for you.  Not unless you want to document all your absurd claims you have made about my essay.  Thanks.

Hmmm!? What does David Moriarty really know about Charles Blair Macdonald?? I guess he knows what he’s read in books and magazines and newspapers? Does he know any more about him than just that? Do you David Moriarty, and if so why and how could that be? And what do you really know about H.J. Whigam? What do you know about what I think of Whigam?

Only what you write.

It may be hard for you to understand but I actually despise historical revisionism of that type on here more than I despise you. Next time don’t try to tell ME what I THINK of people I actually KNEW!

So let me get this straight . . . You are now an expert on H.J. Whigham because while you have no recollection of it whatsoever your grandparents dined with him?  Hard to argue with facts and logic like that.

Furthermore, Moriarty, I definitely meant and mean no disrespect at all to H.J. Whigam and what he did or said at any time, but when I see you accuse us of disrespecting Whigam to promote Hugh Wilson, I'm afraid I'm going to come after you again totally comprehensively about the snide and truly disrespectful things you have said on here about Hugh Wilson's brother, Alan Wilson, including what he wrote for a history writer of Merion about his brother's part in the architecture of Merion East and West including what the men on Hugh's committee said about that.

Terrific.  Please list, verbatim, every "snide" thing I have ever written about Alan Wilson.  It shouldn't take long, because I don't think I have ever written a snide thing about him. 

So what about Alan Wilson?? He was there constantly throughout all those years his brother who he worked with every day did all that he did. Who in the hell do YOU THINK was in a better position to know what really happened, Whigam or ALAN WILSON, a man who was frankly a whole lot more impressive person in golf than Whigam? If you get that one wrong again Moriarty you truly are the idiotic historical revisionist I see you to be on this website!

I've never read a thing that puts Alan Wilson at NGLA during those meetings, nor for that matter that he was at all involved in the planning stages of the East course at Merion.  But if there are facts indicating otherwise, please bring them forward.  That being said, I have no reason to doubt most of what is in Alan Wilson's letter, even though some of it was admittedly second hand information.

As for your claim that Alan Wilson "was a whole lot more impressive person in golf than Whigham,"  I see no need to compare or rank the accomplishments and contributions of various respected figures in early American golf.     I will note, however, that your willingness to do so generally and in this case specifically speaks volumes about your lack of perspective and reasonableness in these matters.

[TEPaul]

"I'd be glad to document it, but not for you.  Not unless you want to document all your absurd claims you have made about my essay.  Thanks."


Don't worry about documenting anything to do with Whigam and Piping Rock. I doubt you're capable of that anyway and for me it was just a quick call away to Long Island. Whigam became an honorary member of Piping Rock in 1946.

Tomorrow I have no doubt at all you will try and make it look like you figured that out! 

By the way, it would take about 117,000 Moriartys to amount to about one tenth of the commonsense of a Bob Crosby.

Your essay it the most preposterous piece of fallacious contentions and tortured logic anyone who knows much of anything about Merion's actual history has ever seen. Nobody here from Merion or who knows anything about the history of the place is even remotely concerned about such revisionism-----they just tend to shake their heads and almost smile that someone could actually think anyone with a modicum of understanding of the subject would be interested in even considering something like that.

You're actually concerned about your reputation? Perhaps you should have thought about that a couple of years ago before you began this ridiculous charade.

[BCrosby]

David - Not to quibble, but a "professional" obit would have been written by a professional journalist. See NYT obits.

Those aren't usually written by a son-in-law. Those are better called reminiscences.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

David - Not to quibble, but a "professional" obit would have been written by a professional journalist. See NYT obits.

Those aren't usually written by a son-in-law. Those are better called reminiscences.

Bob

Bob,   Whigham was a professional journalist.

[TEPaul]

"Only what you write."



That right there is the REAL baseline problem with David Moriarty. YOUR INTERPRETATION of what practically ANYONE writes is some of the most scatter-brained conjecture I've ever seen in my life! At this point, it actually appears that you believe that YOUR INTERPETATION of what someone writes is the SAME THING as FACT.  

That's precisely why YOUR INTERPRETATION to do with just about anything about Merion is invariably factually inaccurate!

[BCrosby]

And, conveniently, a family member. Which is the point.

[TEPaul]

"So let me get this straight . . . You are now an expert on H.J. Whigham because while you have no recollection of it whatsoever your grandparents dined with him?  Hard to argue with facts and logic like that."



Perfect! Just another example of Moriarty totally limiting the analysis of something. Is there some reason you left out the part about that MET Golf Hall of Famer who knew Whigam well for years and is one of my oldest friends?

If YOU think you could ever compete with her about some personal knowledge of H.J. Whigam you are more delusional than I think you are. With this stuff and that world of Long Island and New York back then, you're a histrioinic little nobody and Know-nothing, David Moriarty, and every post you make on here shows that ever more clearly.

[TEPaul]

"........because I don't think I have ever written a snide thing about him."


Just one more good example of WHAT you THINK and what is fact is never close to being in the same ballpark! Your essay is the best example of all. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()