[Kris Shreiner]

Phillip,

Excellents observations. There is no question that new influences on golf architecture were coming from multiple disciplines at the time, often from men with little or no prior design or course construction background. Like most folks with some intellect, they engaged others with the necessary expertise to assist in getting their dreams completed.

The rationale that men, who had often achieved taking some risk in other areas of their life, would be too timid to proceed on their own without the blessing/advice of a C.B. Mac Donald or other of the few GCA gods of the day is nonsense. As TEP strongly suggests, you have to understand the mindsets and personal confidence of those particular men of that era to really analyze it properly. Sure, they made mistakes. but if you look at the body of work, GCA wise...that period, from 1900-1935 or so, contributed more to quality U.S. golf archtecture that any other similar block of time.

Cheers,
Kris

[TEPaul]

"Francis mentions nothing of a routing or a plan. He emphasizes construction as the main purpose of that group. Like I said Barker's is the only documented."


Tom MacWood:

That is simply not true that Barker's plan is the only documented plan. The Barker plan may be the only one you're aware of but it is definitely not the only one Merion (and some of us) are aware of. This is obviously what happens with someone like you and Moriarty who try to research a club's history without ever going to the club itself or establishing a research relationship with it (I know you tried to do that by asking them to just send you their material archives and I know they told you they just don't do that and I know they told you what their research process is which you have to date not tried to take advantage of). I've probably told you this twenty times on here but you still don't seem to be able to figure out  or acknowledge what it means and the importance of it. And with your constant statements in the last day or so about Barker's plan being the only one, your lack of understanding of the material documentation shows in spades.

[Mike Cirba]

If every course that had a preliminary conceptual drawing of a routing by someone who didn't end up as the architect were laid end to end it would reach to Saturn and back.

[TEPaul]

"What am I missing?"


Sully:

What you're apparently missing is the interesting and fine art and science of stock underwriting (capitalization). In a general sense it is basically an accounting mechanism of turning an expense into an asset.

With Lloyd and his $300,000 capitalization of HDC I doubt HDC put any additional money in. They probably just pledged a certain amount of their asset cost basis (in land or lots) that was capitalized via stock to the tune of about $150,000 for HDC. The remaining stock subscription ($150,000 for MCC subscribers) was sold as either a stock investment backed by land or a purchase of the land via lots that included a mortgaging component. Basically stock underwriting involves the owner of a company or asset giving up some equity in his asset for additional working capital to further develop and sell the asset for a higher price. That involves marking up the price of the asset (in incremental components such as per acre price or a widget or whatever ). I would assume that the actual development costs on the HDC residential development were considerably less than $150,000 (roads and development infrastructure and such) and perhaps considerably less than that. In that vein, it is interesting that Mike Cirba seems to have virtually documented that it actually may've been MCC who paid for the cost of building Golf House Road.

Stock underwriting (capitalization) is essentially risk shifting for a client for a fee or for a piece of his action or some combination of both. The stock underwriter assumes the risk of selling out the stock subcription to investors. The basic alternative would be for the client to just go out and borrow the money himself or generate the necessary development funds internally via his company's operating profits. But at the point we are talking about with HDC they didn't have any operating profit yet. 

Stock underwriting capitalization is what a guy like Lloyd did for a living (partner of Drexel & Co), the very place and address C.B. Macdonald sent to him that letter about his opinions of the land at Ardmore.

By the way, at this time I believe Macdonald was a specialist for a New York financial company known at that time as Barney & Co, the fore-runner of what would later become the massive Smith Barney & Co.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-Author
No, its not the same. CC Worthington was neither inexperienced or untested. He had designed and built at least one golf course prior to Shawnee, and probably two, if not several more. And he was not an insurance salesman, he was an industrialist who owned the Worthington Mower Company, among other things, which specialized in mowing equipment for golf courses.

TEP
Is there a reason why you are avoiding my question? I would think determining when the golf course was routed would be one of the first and most important steps in determining who routed the golf course.

[Tom MacWood]

"Francis mentions nothing of a routing or a plan. He emphasizes construction as the main purpose of that group. Like I said Barker's is the only documented."


Tom MacWood:

That is simply not true that Barker's plan is the only documented plan. The Barker plan may be the only one you're aware of but it is definitely not the only one Merion (and some of us) are aware of. This is obviously what happens with someone like you and Moriarty who try to research a club's history without ever going to the club itself or establishing a research relationship with it (I know you tried to do that by asking them to just send you their material archives and I know they told you they just don't do that and I know they told you what their research process is which you have to date not tried to take advantage of). I've probably told you this twenty times on here but you still don't seem to be able to figure out  or acknowledge what it means and the importance of it. And with your constant statements in the last day or so about Barker's plan being the only one, your lack of understanding of the material documentation shows in spades.

Well then, show us the documentation.

[TEPaul]

“TEP
Is there a reason why you are avoiding my question? I would think determining when the golf course was routed would be one of the first and most important steps in determining who routed the golf course.”


“Well then show us the documentation.”


Tom MacWood:

The documentation from MCC that was found in the last year by Merion’s historians is all over these long and multiple Merion threads about this era and subject. The actual words from that documentation are on these threads.

You are so damned lazy as a researcher and analyst you were obviously not willing to go to Merion or MCC and find it for yourself so we found it for you and everyone else on here and put it on here in quotes. Obviously you never even bothered to read any of it if you actually admit (which you just did on this thread) that you’re unaware of what is referred to on here as the Wilson Committee report to the MCC board meeting of April 19, 1911, and what that report says, as well as what the rest of those April 19, 1911 board meeting minutes say about what they referred to about the plan that was approved and what they need to do to finalize it for construction (the swap and the purchase of an additional three acres and the lease of the 3 acre P&W land).

You actually call yourself an ‘expert researcher” on here? Well you can just research the back threads for the information you just asked me for or just go to Merion and find it yourself, as we did. I’ll be damned if I’m going to do any more research work on Merion for you and particularly considering the fact that even after I already did it in the last year you didn’t even bother to read it much less attempt to understand any of it.

In my opinion, MacWood, it’s just too late for you to participate in any intelligent or constructive way on this subject about the architectural history of Merion East in 1910 and 1911.

[TEPaul]

"Phil-the-Author
No, its not the same. CC Worthington was neither inexperienced or untested. He had designed and built at least one golf course prior to Shawnee, and probably two, if not several more. And he was not an insurance salesman, he was an industrialist who owned the Worthington Mower Company, among other things, which specialized in mowing equipment for golf courses."



Tom MacWood:

As usual, you missed Phil's point entirely. He didn't say Worthington designed Shawnee, he said he got Tillinghast to do it when Tillinghast had little to no previous experience in architecture. But like Wilson, maybe you think Tillinghast was originally and naturally untalented at the time too.   

[Tom MacWood]

“TEP
Is there a reason why you are avoiding my question? I would think determining when the golf course was routed would be one of the first and most important steps in determining who routed the golf course.”


“Well then show us the documentation.”


Tom MacWood:

The documentation from MCC that was found in the last year by Merion’s historians is all over these long and multiple Merion threads about this era and subject. The actual words from that documentation are on these threads.

You are so damned lazy as a researcher and analyst you were obviously not willing to go to Merion or MCC and find it for yourself so we found it for you and everyone else on here and put it on here in quotes. Obviously you never even bothered to read any of it if you actually admit (which you just did on this thread) that you’re unaware of what is referred to on here as the Wilson Committee report to the MCC board meeting of April 19, 1911, and what that report says, as well as what the rest of those April 19, 1911 board meeting minutes say about what they referred to about the plan that was approved and what they need to do to finalize it for construction (the swap and the purchase of an additional three acres and the lease of the 3 acre P&W land).

You actually call yourself an ‘expert researcher” on here? Well you can just research the back threads for the information you just asked me for or just go to Merion and find it yourself, as we did. I’ll be damned if I’m going to do any more research work on Merion for you and particularly considering the fact that even after I already did it in the last year you didn’t even bother to read it much less attempt to understand any of it.

In my opinion, MacWood, it’s just too late for you to participate in any intelligent or constructive way on this subject about the architectural history of Merion East in 1910 and 1911.

TEP
Let me explain something to do you. When a person makes a historical claim (or a scientific claim, medical claim, etc) before people will accept it as true that person has to provide documented proof. That is how the scientific and academic world has operated for over a thousand years. Now I'm sure you are a good guy, and I'd love take you word for it, and maybe in Philadelphia thats all they need, but that is not how things work in the real world. You still need to provide documented proof.

Why are you hesitant to answer the question about when the course was routed? I would think that would be of vital importance in uncovering the truth.

I understood what Phil was saying, and I hope you both understand what I am saying. If you don't think CC Worthington was involved I've got some waterfront property in NJ I'd like to sell you.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Let me explain something to do you. When a person makes a historical claim (or a scientific claim, medical claim, etc) before people will accept it as true that person has to provide documented proof. That is how the scientific and academic world has operated for over a thousand years. Now I'm sure you are a good guy, and I'd love take you word for it, and maybe in Philadelphia thats all they need, but that is not how things work in the real world. You still need to provide documented proof.

Why are you hesitant to answer the question about when the course was routed? I would think that would be of vital importance in uncovering the truth."



Tom MacWood:

AND LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU!

I do not consider this website or its DG (Discussion Group) to be a part of the scientific and academic world of research and content, even on the subject and history of golf course architecture. Maybe people like you and Moriarty do somehow but I most certainly don't!

Therefore, I am more than free to offer my opinions (this is a DG for golf architectural opinion and discussion, nothing more) whether I back it up by what I KNOW or whether I back it up with the actual documents of what I know or whether I back it up with NEITHER (and even while critiquing or even criticizing something he said and wrote on here like that preposterous essay that you apparently were involved in creating, "The Missing Faces of Merion").

Apparently you are not aware of this and never have been. That may be why people like you would say something like that and think it. You are just wrong about that plain and simple. You are just as wrong about that as Moriarty is when he keeps claiming that someone like me or Wayne cannot talk about what I (we) know, and particularly while criticizing his essay, without producing verifiable evidence of what I (we) say as prosecution or defense attorneys must do in a court of law under the American legal procedure and requirement of "Discovery."

GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its DG does not require such procedures of the scientific and academic world or such legal requirements of American courtroom jurisprudence, even if Moriarty has also seemed to be under some belief that it does or should.

If you or anyone else wants to verify or try to prove wrong anything I say on this website and this DG about Merion or any other club, then you or they can just damn well establish a working relationship with the PRIVATE club I got this material from and then just GO THERE and determine for yourselves whether YOU THINK I am right or whether I am wrong about what I have said on this website and its DG!

And failing that there is no requirement or procedure that is part of this website and DG that requires me to turn over actual evidence of what I say on here to either of you, either actually or on this DG.

Do not think that either I or Merion does not see through what you two do and have been trying to do on here and probably for years now. You think if you just throw some shit about the history of Merion on the wall on this website then some of us who have far more actual physical material information on the club via its contemporaneous records must then turn it over to you before we can criticize or even respond to what you say about the club or its history.

That is not the way this website and its DG works, MacWood, and we from the club and friends of the club feel you two do this and demand these procedures or requirements on here because you are both either too damned lazy or too damn insecure to do what we did and establish a working research relationship with these clubs yourself and analyzing their research information for yourselves and in person, as some of us here have done for years now.

We are just not going to do your legwork and research work for you. We may've considered it years ago if you had come to us FIRST and before your MO and the adverserial attitude of both of you on here became so obvious but we will not consider that now or in the future.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

just out of curiosity, do you think you have provided `acceptable` documentation of your historic claim that barker routed Merion?

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
There is a difference between a historic claim and a theory. I've never claimed I had proof Barker routed the golf course, I've said the two most likely candidates are Barker & CBM and gave my reasons why, which included a number of known facts.

I have claimed Barker is only person that we know created a plan, and we have all seen that documentation. Why don't you stop operating under a double standard and require TEP to provide some proof?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

AND LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU!

I do not consider this website or its DG (Discussion Group) to be a part of the scientific and academic world of research and content, even on the subject and history of golf course architecture. Maybe people like you and Moriarty do somehow but I most certainly don't!

Therefore, I am more than free to offer my opinions (this is a DG for golf architectural opinion and discussion, nothing more) whether I back it up by what I KNOW or whether I back it up with the actual documents of what I know or whether I back it up with NEITHER (and even while critiquing or even criticizing something he said and wrote on here like that preposterous essay that you apparently were involved in creating, "The Missing Faces of Merion").

Apparently you are not aware of this and never have been. That may be why people like you would say something like that and think it. You are just wrong about that plain and simple. You are just as wrong about that as Moriarty is when he keeps claiming that someone like me or Wayne cannot talk about what I (we) know, and particularly while criticizing his essay, without producing verifiable evidence of what I (we) say as prosecution or defense attorneys must do in a court of law under the American legal procedure and requirement of "Discovery."

GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its DG does not require such procedures of the scientific and academic world or such legal requirements of American courtroom jurisprudence, even if Moriarty has also seemed to be under some belief that it does or should.

If you or anyone else wants to verify or try to prove wrong anything I say on this website and this DG about Merion or any other club, then you or they can just damn well establish a working relationship with the PRIVATE club I got this material from and then just GO THERE and determine for yourselves whether YOU THINK I am right or whether I am wrong about what I have said on this website and its DG!

And failing that there is no requirement or procedure that is part of this website and DG that requires me to turn over actual evidence of what I say on here to either of you, either actually or on this DG.

Do not think that either I or Merion does not see through what you two do and have been trying to do on here and probably for years now. You think if you just throw some shit about the history of Merion on the wall on this website then some of us who have far more actual physical material information on the club via its contemporaneous records must then turn it over to you before we can criticize or even respond to what you say about the club or its history.

That is not the way this website and its DG works, MacWood, and we from the club and friends of the club feel you two do this and demand these procedures or requirements on here because you are both either too damned lazy or too damn insecure to do what we did and establish a working research relationship with these clubs yourself and analyzing their research information for yourselves and in person, as some of us here have done for years now.

We are just not going to do your legwork and research work for you. We may've considered it years ago if you had come to us FIRST and before your MO and the adverserial attitude of both of you on here became so obvious but we will not consider that now or in the future.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. We have all seen tons documents posted on this site that came straight from MCC. I guess privacy wasn't an issue with those documents. Obviously there is another reason you/they refuse to post the document in question. Either support your claim or drop it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMAC,

Where above did I ask you to provide proof?  What double standard?

BTW, your theory also purposely IGNORES many known facts, and from what I know, doesn`t have any secondary verification.  IF we are in the historic community, is that enough info to put it out there for peer review, as Phil recently educated us on historic protocol?  If we are not, is it justified?

BTW, I truly don`t understand what other proof TePaul needs to provide, as he has just shared (along with others) some documents from the official record?  What else could they provide?  But, I guess you only have a theory that they are holding back, but have never made that a claim?

In this context, I find your distinction a bit too self serving.

[TEPaul]

"Blah, blah, blah, blah. We have all seen tons documents posted on this site that came straight from MCC. I guess privacy wasn't an issue with those documents. Obviously there is another reason you/they refuse to post the document in question. Either support your claim or drop it."


Tom MacWood:

Any issue with privacy regarding what I put on here is strictly between me and Merion. If they did not want me to write what I do on here there is no question I would be the first to hear from them about it.

You're right, there has been tons of documentary evidence on here and quoted that came from particularly MCC's archives and the fact is the likes of you and Moriarty had no idea about it or what it said before that essay you two apparently did together was put on here. The fact is it was gotten by Merion and its historians after that essay came out and not by yourselves.

And now you want it and even think and proclaim on here it should be owed to you for some odd reason. That is not true at all and if you have any doubt about it I think you both know where to call.

There is no other reasons I'm aware of that this information is not posted again, particularly since it already has been and apparently you're too lazy to look for it on here.

So, again, I'm not going to post it for you again and just do more of the research legwork you should be doing yourself, and I'm definitely not going to drop it either.

You two need to be shown on here constantly for what you really are and what you're both doing and what you're not doing which you should do; eg the very same thing that any of us with a real interest in and familiartiy with Merion's architectural history have already done and continue to do.  

I have just never been able to figure out what makes you and Moriarty THINK that you two should be treated by us or by Merion and MCC any differently than anyone else, including some of us here.

[TEPaul]

"There is a difference between a historic claim and a theory."



Tom MacWood:

In that case, for your own satisfaction perhaps what you should do from now on is just consider everything Merion and Merion's friends and historians present as the architectural history of the East Course to be a THEORY and not an HISTORIC CLAIM!  

Either way, at this point, I very much doubt the club or anyone that knows anything about the East Course's architectural history gives one good God-Damn what you think about any of it! It has also now become my hope that in the future everyone who has anything to do with this website feels the same way about just about anything you think or have to say about golf course architecture and its entire history---period!

[DMoriarty]

TMac,

just out of curiosity, do you think you have provided `acceptable` documentation of your historic claim that barker routed Merion?

Jeff,  If next week TomM posted that he had tracked down HHBarkers relatives and had found a number of documents which indicated that HHBarker was responsible for Merion's routing, would you want to see those documents, or would you take his word for what those documents meant?

Quite obviously by his years of above-the-board dealings here I'd never suspect TomM would lie about something like that, yet I'd still insist on seeing the documents.  Proper vetting and critical review is necessary even where all the participants are honest and upright, because mistakes get made, and interpretations vary.   Having documents isn't enough, understanding them is the key.   And without proper vetting, we would have no idea whether TomM had a true understanding of what he had.  

[TEPaul]

"Proper vetting and critical review is necessary even where all the participants are honest and upright, because mistakes get made, and interpretations vary.   Having documents isn't enough, understanding them is the key.   And without proper vetting, we would have no idea whether TomM had a true understanding of what he had."



I agree with all of that. Having documents isn't enough; understanding them is the key. With that proper vetting I would hope would occur. But the problem in all of this with MacWood and Moriarty, is they for some odd reason to follow Merion's and MCC's process to review and consider those documents and to try to understand them. They have been both told this by Merion and MCC but yet they do not seem to want to follow the same procedure all the rest of us have followed with those two clubs in establishing our research procedures with them.

Moriarty and MacWood will probably just continue to ignore this reality or rationalize it away somehow by just blaming some of us on this website or concocting some scientific and academic procedures or some legal requirement and expecting them to apply to this website and DG which they most certainly do not! They probably will continue to do that and just avoid the reality that if they want these things they really will need to do what those who got them and have had them before them did and also how they go about using their information on here.

This reality is never going to go away no matter how much yammering, caterwaling, complaining and demanding Moriarty and MacWood do on here to the contrary!  

I think everyone on this website, including Ran Morrissett, should just tell these two guys in unison that if they really want what they seem to be demanding they pretty much need to follow the proper procedures of the clubs to establish a working research relationship and try to get what they're after, as the rest of us who have research relationships with Merion and MCC have done.

I think everyone on here should just ask them in unison to explain credibly and completely why it is they feel they should be the only exceptions!

Six or seven years ago if they had only come to some of us first perhaps it may've turned out differently but they both refused to do that and the reasons they gave are on here----and they are reasons which are very, very much less than impressive or satisfactory for Merion, MCC and those they have shared research material with and asked to help them over the years with their history presentations.

[DMoriarty]

I'm not interested in discussing these access issues with TEPaul, who isn't even a member of Merion.  That would be in bad taste and insulting to Merion.  But I will say that TEPaul's claims about such matters are purely fiction.  

[TEPaul]

Of course you're not interested in discussing this RESEARCH INFORMATION access issue, Moriarty; obviously because you understand the realities of it enough and also because you probably know you've been a complete failure in doing what the process of those clubs requires anyone to do in this vein, and even after you tried to discuss that with both of them.

And no, I am not a member of Merion GC or MCC, even if it's not as if I've never been asked----the only club I've ever belonged to around here is GMGC--- but the fact is I've had perhaps 200-300 friends at both clubs and over more than thirty years for a whole variety of reasons, as I have at all kinds of clubs around Philadelphia and in Pennsylvania, and even in New Jersey, New York (where I grew up), Massachussetts, Canada, Florida etc. I guess, on some reflection, much of that had to do with playing so much tournament golf for so long, certainly considering annual Cup tournaments like the Baily or Lesley and a bunch of invitationals all over the east coast but particularly from being on the boards of GAP and the Pa Golf Association for so many years. All those clubs around here or in this state are where those two organizations play all their tournaments, so of course somebody who plays a lot of tournaments and is on those boards and Cup tournaments and invitationals and stuff is going to make a lot of friends at all those clubs. Other than that I guess a lot of it has to do with the ethos around here and how closely connected historically some of these clubs around here and their members have always been. Ask Lynn Shackelford about that---when he came here some years ago for a few days, and played some of these places, including Merion East, that was his immediate observation about Philadelphia golf and he couldn't believe how different it was that way from what he's known in other cities.

So it really isn't for you to say what fact or fiction is about such matters as that because the truth is you have no idea at all about such matters and you never have had---probably never will have.

I'm the one who's had all those friends at those two clubs over all those years as well as a really good research relationship with Merion, not you---so I just pretty much know what I'm talking about in those matters, and I'm afraid you are just not in a position to know or understand these things and certainly not to tell anyone on this website what is fact or fiction about matters like THAT! But if you still want to pursue it on here or anywhere else and find out about such matters, I've told you a number of times how to do it. Merion GC and MCC and the people who run both have telephones and computers and email like most all the rest of us. You should just ask them if you really want to find out about matters such as THAT!

But I doubt you ever will------at least no anymore than you followed their research process that they explained to you as they do to the rest of us.

[DMoriarty]

I suggest that while TEPaul goes on ranting about who he knows, the rest of us should return to discussing what we know.

_________________________________________

Jeff,

Returning to the Evans letter, do you get my meaning regarding how I think "to lay out" and "to lay off" were used?   I ask because obviously others do not.   From his post on the issue, Mike is still quite confused.  He apparently thinks that, by my understanding, laying out a golf course never involved any planning.   Not so.  My point is just that there was often planning which took place before a course was "laid out" on the ground.  

Unwittingly, Mike provided a good example of this. NGLA.   The article he posted mentions that CBM et al. were going "to lay out" NGLA.  Future tense.  It hadn't happened yet.   But the article also makes clear that the planning had been ongoing for some time.  It discusses a number of golf holes, and their locations on the property.    And, according to the article, the detailed planning would continue.  

Mike has yet to come up with much of anything suggesting that "laying out a golf course" was done on paper, and not the ground.    If he or anyone else ever bothers to check up on my claim, I think they will find that, generally, golf courses were laid out on the ground.  

[TEPaul]

"I suggest that while TEPaul goes on ranting about who he knows, the rest of us should return to discussing what we know."


Go for it Moriarty; just go on with the same old arguements you've been making on here for over a year with zero ability to learn anything about Merion's architectural history despite the remarkably important material that was found for everyone by Merion's historians at MCC after your essay which you should've at least been aware of for that essay before you wrote it. And when it comes to you all discussing what you know remember that most on here can come to me to provide them with information that will clarify what they don't know when they finally figure out what that is.

What threads like this one should really do on here is to serve as excellent examples of how not to write an essay on some subject you don't know enough about, like you and MacWood and that transparent and ridiculously fallacious "The Missing Faces of Merion." It's amazing what some of these threads have uncovered that make just about everything in that essay provably wrong. There are more factual holes in that essay now than a piece of Swiss cheese and you still haven't even bothered to alter it and fix a thing about it. I suppose you feel that might be some kind of actual admission that you were wrong about something, obviously a concept you can't get your mind around very well. So you just go droning on month after month with preposterous logic and your usual evasions and deceptions. REALLY, really boring actually! But what the hell, at least you're still out there arguing! "Hey look, Mom, and Dad, I'm out there arguing; I'm actually making an argument! Aren't you proud of me?"



By the way, Jeffrey, do you really want to even be bothered responding to a post as silly as Moriarty's #1045? If so, why don't you argue with him for a while first about what the meaning of IS is?   

[Dan Herrmann]

Phillip Young - thanks for trying.  I asked Tom/David last year, "Who designed Oakmont"?  In their argument, wouldn't they likely theorize that Fownes never could have designed such a course due to his inexperience.

Oh well, back to lurking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I agree that Tmac wouldn`t fudge docs, so I wouldn`t need to see them.  I get what you are saying - I trust Mom, but if we are playing for money, I cut the cards.  Here, I don`t feel like I am playing for money, but some of you seem to be, including you, who posted a somewhat scholarly piece, even if called an opinion piece, and the philly boys.

To be honest, there are a lot of issues here, like does this really count as history research, or is it just discussion. 

Frankly, and with no disrespect to anyone who thinks otherwise, I have rarely if ever viewed any of the word parsing arguments as valuable.  Just as so many things tend to be more standard as time goes on, and golf was in its infancy, I expect most of the terms were used in different ways and we can`t tell much from that kind of stuff.

[TEPaul]

"Here, I don`t feel like I am playing for money, but some of you seem to be, including you, who posted a somewhat scholarly piece, even if called an opinion piece, and the philly boys."



Jeffrey:

A SOMEWHAT scholarly piece?? What are you talking about Jeffrey? I never took you for a gullible type!  

This place is a discussion group, plain and simple; it definitely isn't part of the higher world of science and academia that MacWood just mentioned and it sure isn't a courtroom with its procedures either as Moriarty tries to make it seem like.

And this whole devolution into word parsing on a thread like this one is for those on here who haven't done the necessary research and just don't have the facts or just don't want to admit to them generally due to some preconceived agenda.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()