[TEPaul]

The last twenty or so posts are what I would call some pretty effective "opinion peer review."  

I hope and I certainly expect that North Shore GC and other clubs who look in on this website that are interested in the subject of architect and architectural attribution will benefit from it.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Don't give me that c'mon BS. The quote you illogically parsed said that Raynor and White laid out the golf course. The notes do not clearly say Raynor designed the golf course, the notes clearly state that Raynor, CBM and White all were involved and all deserved credit. Raynor is never singled out. Are you familar with collaborations? You have a habit of reading these things in the most bizarre and illogical manner.

[Tom MacWood]

There is only a single reference to him {White} by name and that refers to his CONSTRUCTION expertise AFTER refering to Raynor as the pre-eminent architect in America.

You are certainly free to INTERPRET a sentence or phrase as you please; but that doesn't make it correct nor does it make it a statement of fact.

“The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”

“When we made our purchase, it was reported that our links measured about 6400 yards but we soon found out that these figures were entirely erroneous and, as a matter of fact, the actual measurement was only slightly over 5,000 yards. Even before we made our acquisition, we knew that in many respects the links were badly planned and that at some time a largely modified layout would have to be determined upon. The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States. This new course will measure about 6,400 yards, it will take in about fifteen acres of woodland and takes the fullest advantage of the natural advantages offered by the rolling ground which we own.”

“I know that I am only voicing the sentiment of all our members in expressing gratification at the result accomplished, which has, at one bound, placed us in line with the golf links recognized as the best in the United States. We, of course, were greatly favored in the matter by the remarkable natural advantages offered by our land, but no results like those accomplished could have been achieved without the genius of those mainly responsible namely: Mr. Seth J. Raynor, Mr C.B. McDonald and Mr. Robert White.”

Phil
Based on these three quotes assigning credit at NS how do you interpret White's only involvement was construction? Are deep thought, laying out the golf course and genius actions and qualities normally associated with construction or design?

[TEPaul]

"Phil
Don't give me that c'mon BS. The quote you illogically parsed said that Raynor and White laid out the golf course. The notes do not clearly say Raynor designed the golf course, the notes clearly state that Raynor, CBM and White all were involved and all deserved credit. Raynor is never singled out. Are you familar with collaborations? You have a habit of reading these things in the most bizarre and illogical manner."



Tom MacWood:

Perhaps you choose to use individual examples of the important material Steve Shaeffer found on North Shore GC in the New York Historical Society to continue to make your point that you think Robert White should share design credit with Raynor (and Macdonald) but that is not the best or the most intelligent way to analyze this situation.

You say Raynor was not singled out as the designer of the course. In fact he was in another of the documents Shaeffer found but you either forgot that or you are actively choosing to ignore it. It also said that Robert White was hired by the club as their professional, greenskeeper and for construction purposes. Nothing in any of those documents mentioned White was hired for design purposes as they say about Seth Raynor.

"Laid out," by the way, was a very broad term used back in that day for all kinds of purposes. For our purpose of assigning specific architect attribution it is anything but definitive of just design.

Matter of fact, it should probably never be used selectively or else it runs the risk of becoming contradictory in architectural analysis. A good example of that is that you are trying to use the term "laid out" in the case here of North Shore to mean that White was involved in design, while with Merion, when their board and committee reports mentioned that Hugh Wilson and his committee laid out (plans, courses etc before construction began) you and Moriarty tried to claim that only meant construction and that therefore Wilson and Committee definitionally were not involved in routing and design of the East course, and consequently it must have been only Macdonald and Whigam.

Using that term selectively like that has resulted in your own self-contradiction, Tom MacWood, and some very poor analysis, historical and otherwise.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
That is very true, the documents do say Raynor was hired to design the golf course and his plan was sent up for approval. In the absence of the other information one could only conclude it was solo Raynor effort, case closed. But thankfully there is more evidence for us to interpret, and that is why CBM is now given co-design credit, is it not? I'm looking at all the evidence not just the one document that says Raynor designed the golf course.

Are you saying that in this case laid out could mean construction?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You said it yourself...in this quote: "Obviously the green committee was not out there routing the golf course (thats why they hired White & Raynor, and engaged CBM)."

They hired Raynor as Golf Course Architect.....

They hired White as PRO and GREENS EXPERT and to OVERSEE the new course, if executed, all withing the scope of the typical pro/greenskeeper role.

We know CBM didn't accept payments, but as this was apparently Raynor's first solo contract, we presume he was still willing to help his protoge. I don't know that he deserves credit for a few "atta boys" .

But going back to your fixation on White, you can have your opinion, and I agree that White was right there.  But parsing wording of some document probably written after a drink filled board meeting to determine history is not a great way to read things either.  The contracts that legally bind the parties say Raynor was the gca, White was the Pro.  Absent any real knowledge of the contributions of each, or changes to the responsibilities of each, the contracts should trump speculation on who did what.  In any case, even if Raynor never showed up and allowd White free reign, he was responsible for the final design.  He had to have signed off on it, along with the greens committee.

(That does happen, BTW, as Joe Finger always credited his start in the biz to being on an air force base and in charge of a new golf course designed by a big name who didn't have time for the project, and was all to happy to let eager beaver Joe handle most of the work)

Even if White made suggestions, the contracts and more importantly the DYNAMICS of the situation dictate that others with money on the line for the results would have had to power to overrule and make the final decisions.  I say that based on my own experience.  Yeah, it might have happened differently, but given human nature, I doubt it. It would be rare and take a real strong personality by White, and weakness by Raynor (on his first job, maybe?) and the powerful greens committee to allow that to happen.  It doesn't usually work out that way. (esp if White came from Chicago area and was working for a bunch of new yorkers.


Short version, I see your point, I really do.  If anyone finds a document with any more clarity about the five holes, who did what, I would think that a) you would be the guy to find it and b) North Shore and its supporters would be deeply indebted to you or whoever found it.

But for now, another 22 page gca.com thread based on repeating the same old documents just makes me want to scream.  (and its not just you, either!)  We are just in that phase of the argument where everyone (yours truly included) is repeating ourselves with no new info of value.  I'm done here. Its fun, but I have no real info to offer either.  Your mission, TMac, should you decide to accept it, is to find some new, real info!

Just MHO>

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
Does being hired as professional/greenkeeper prohibit White from being involved in the design? What evidence do we have that CBM was involved in the design?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

If you read my response before posting, you would have seen that I believe that White was "right there" through the process in his capacity as pro. I also noted that, barring any real info, and based on how CBM is known to work other places with Raynor, that he probably lent more moral support to Raynor than actual design help.

Back to White, there is some speculation that he did some tweaks after Raynor left (maybe from you, I don't recall)  Those should probably be recorded in history if major.  We just don't know how major they were.  IMHO< adding a few bunkers falls short, but that is what the debate is all about.

How could anything I have written in my previous post lead you to ask those questions?

[TEPaul]

"Are deep thought, laying out the golf course and genius actions and qualities normally associated with construction or design?"


Tom MacWood:

They are qualities normally associated with both Tom MacWood. Apparently you fail to understand that and the importance of construction because you have so little experience on the sites of projects under design and construction. You ought to assign a considerable amount of your time one of these days and go out there and watch how it all happens from the beginning of a project until the finished product; you just may learn something you seemingly do not now know, understand or appreciate. And it definitely shows in these constant posts of yours which just keep missing the mark despite the fact of the responses from others to the contrary who actually have the experiences in these things you clearly do not.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Rather than wasting space and putting the three quotes back again, you asked, "Based on these three quotes assigning credit at NS how do you interpret White's only involvement was construction? Are deep thought, laying out the golf course and genius actions and qualities normally associated with construction or design?"

I DON'T; he was also the head professional/greenkeeper. Did he makem suggestions during the lay-out and design process? PROBABLY yes. Were these suggestions listened to or followed? There is NO WAY of knowing based upon anything written. Was he hired by the club to provide design services? NO! Raynor and Raynor alone, was.

You also, in another post, stated, "The quote you illogically parsed said that Raynor and White laid out the golf course. I am not the one who parsed the quote; YOU did. You left out an entire phrase that is the SUBJECT of the quote - "The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee" - I pointed that out and showed that the sentence you are using as proof has a VERY different meaning than what you are "interpreting" it to be. Is it poorly written? Yes. Does it state that White was involved in the design or lay-out process? NO.

You continued, "The notes do not clearly say Raynor designed the golf course, the notes clearly state that Raynor, CBM and White all were involved and all deserved credit. Raynor is never singled out." Really? If that was the case why is ONLY Raynor mentioned as having been specifically hired to DESIGN the golf course? Why did YOU write the following - "That is very true, the documents do say Raynor was hired to design the golf course and his plan was sent up for approval. In the absence of the other information one could only conclude it was solo Raynor effort, case closed." It was after that phrase that you mentioned the need to "interpret" other documents to support your belief in the White attribution.

You finished by noting, "Are you familar with collaborations? You have a habit of reading these things in the most bizarre and illogical manner..." Thanks for the compliment!

[TEPaul]

"Does being hired as professional/greenkeeper prohibit White from being involved in the design?"


Tom MacWood:

Of course not, but that is not the point or the purpose of this subject and this investigation into the architect attribution of North Shore GC in 1914-15.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
If he was just a soil expert why did the club make a point of saying he assisted Raynor is laying out the golf course?


Tom,

Off the top of my head, it might be because of the terrain.

There are a number of ravines or deep depressions that appear throughout the golf course.
The rolling nature of the topography, rock formations, creeks and surface drainage all had to be taken into account when laying out the golf course
In 1914, a soil expert could advise an architect as to what areas would make for the best greens and fairways.

The seperating of the disciplines is a striking point.  Why would the club attribute different tasks to different people if those people were performing the same task ?

They assign an individual to seperate tasks, clearly stating that Raynor was the architect and giving White another area of expertise.
Thus, it seems to make sense that White might have helped Raynor lay out the golf course in terms of where the soils were most conducive to placing greens/fairways, along with advising on what areas to avoid.

[TEPaul]

"Are you saying that in this case laid out could mean construction?"


Tom MacWood:

What I am saying is the term "to lay out," "laid out," as used generally with courses, projects, architecture, routing, construction etc in that particular era could mean any number of things. It was clearly not a generally or a specifically definitive term and the over-all record of architecture from that time is total proof positive of that.

For that reason, it should not be used generally or selectively as some factual indication of a specific meaning unless of course there is some other historical evidence that may prove that it might be used more selectively or definitively or specifically!

What would be some factual examples that it could be used more selectively or definitively in a specific sense?

A factual example might be the case of Merion East when a chronological TIMELINE is applied to the entire project and when that term was used----eg if the men working on the routing and design of Merion East (the Wilson Committee) use the term laying out plans and courses BEFORE and in some cases weeks and months BEFORE the construction of the course began then clearly they could not have been referring to actual construction of the course because that would not even happen for some weeks or months AFTER they used that term (laying out).


We pointed all this out to the likes of you and Moriarty during those lagubrious Merion threads. Did either of you even address or acknowledge that reality? You did not, you just continued to ignore it. Why was that? Why is that?

Whatever your answer is, your contentions for a long time now in this vein clearly involves a lack of intelligent and competent historical architectural analysis if you continue to use this term as generally or selectively as you have with some of these subjects-----case in point being Merion East and now apparently North Shore GC!

[Tom MacWood]

Pat
White was more than a soil expert. He was a well respected professional and a greenkeeper. He had also been involved as a golf architect prior to being hired at NS. He was a well rounded individual, which is why he was such a good hire for NS. He would go on to become the first president of the PGA in 1916, and a founding member of the ASGCA in the 40s. He was no lightweight.

TEP
While I agree the term laid out could either mean routed/designed or constructed, in this case, because of when it was written, laid out refers to routing/designing. This statement came in the early stages and a year prior to construction being completed.

Phil
In this case laying out is interchangeable with designing.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
While I agree the term laid out could either mean routed/designed or constructed, in this case, because of when it was written, laid out refers to routing/designing. This statement came in the early stages and a year prior to construction being completed."



Tom MacWood:

I'm really not too sure what the problem is with your logic and analytical ability or lack of both.

If one is going to competently and intelligently assume or conclude that the term "laying out" only specifically means routing/designing and CANNOT mean construction as well, then one cannot use that term (or statement) to include that time in the early stages of construction or prior to construction being completed!

One can only use the term to include ONLY the time BEFORE any construction began at all.

Is it actually possible you cannot understand or appreciate this total reality? If not, I'm just not sure what to say about you other than it has certainly become pretty worthless for any of us to try to have an intelligent discussion with you about the history of golf course architecture and architects and others.

It is as if all of us have to constantly explain to you the most obvious realities such as it is not possible for an event that has been described by a term used in the past tense (laid out) to refer to a separate event that has not yet even occured!  


Here's a current example that may help you understand a basic reality like this. I am now going to leave my barn/office, get on my tractor and go down the street to my sister's place and "mow" a field. But I have not yet "mowed" that field. When I return in a few hours I will have "MOWED" that field but as of now that has not yet happened and so I cannnot refer to it in the past tense-----eg in the case that "laid out" cannot mean construction in the early stages of construction or before construction is completed but must only mean BEFORE it began at all-----for the term NOT to include meaning construction.

SAVY?!? 

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
The statement was made on March 13, 1915. Construction began sometime in February of that year, one would think later in the month based on weather. Construction was completed in March of 1916 (except for some bunkers) and the course opened June 27, 1916. Now for the sake of your tortured logic let us replace the term laid out with constructed and then routed, and then you tell us which makes more sense.

“When we made our purchase, it was reported that our links measured about 6400 yards but we soon found out that these figures were entirely erroneous and, as a matter of fact, the actual measurement was only slightly over 5,000 yards. Even before we made our acquisition, we knew that in many respects the links were badly planned and that at some time a largely modified layout would have to be determined upon. The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have constructed a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States. This new course will measure about 6,400 yards, it will take in about fifteen acres of woodland and takes the fullest advantage of the natural advantages offered by the rolling ground which we own.”

“When we made our purchase, it was reported that our links measured about 6400 yards but we soon found out that these figures were entirely erroneous and, as a matter of fact, the actual measurement was only slightly over 5,000 yards. Even before we made our acquisition, we knew that in many respects the links were badly planned and that at some time a largely modified layout would have to be determined upon. The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have routed a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States. This new course will measure about 6,400 yards, it will take in about fifteen acres of woodland and takes the fullest advantage of the natural advantages offered by the rolling ground which we own.”

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Does anyone think the minutes as recorded are in error in that Raynor was not "...  the leading Golf Architect in the United States..." at the time as he was just starting his independent career and that  MacDonald was not "... the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction..." as he was more wll known as a golf architect?

Were the terms transposed?  Wasn't Raynor the engineer/construction guy for MacDonald,the architect?

Was there "puffing" involved?

[TEPaul]

"Was there "puffing" involved?"


Steverino:

Was there "puffing" involved? Are you kidding? There was some form of "puffing" involved in just about every single newspaper article or internal club piece ever written about just about ever project that was ever reported, particularly back in that day and age!

How many of these things have you read? I've read hundreds and hundreds of them and almost without exception they are described as "going to be the best or one of the very best courses in America" or "by the best or one of the very best architects in America."


I'm mean, come on, how many of the very best architects or courses in America could there ever be?    

Obvioiusly North Shore was no different then most of the rest who also said those things. Isn't this kind of thing completely obvious? Hasn't it always been completely obvious?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "Phil, In this case laying out is interchangeable with designing." Also, "While I agree the term laid out could either mean routed/designed or constructed, in this case, because of when it was written, laid out refers to routing/designing. This statement came in the early stages and a year prior to construction being completed."

Tom, you are wrong in both statements. The course was "laid out" AFTER the design was PUT ON PAPER! These are Steve's notes from the minutes which Mark Hissey verified as being correct:

4. On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work.
5.   On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own.

They would not have laid out the course PRIOR to January 26, the date that course design plans were definitely finished by, because the membership had not approved the work to build the course before then, a course that would require them to, as is found in the notes dated December 23, 1914, more than a month BEFORE, that "taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course..."

You can't lay out a course without permission to do so and you don't do it if you don't know where its going. You CAN design a course on paper and show where it will be (routing) on the property BEFORE it is laid out. That this is what happened in this case based can be seen from the information found in the Board Minutes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Was he puffing up? Yeah probably, and that is why they used the CBM name as added weight.  However, I believe that Raynor did a lot more than just construction for CBM during his associate/training period.

As to White, TMac puffs him up a bit, too.  He came to the US in 1894 to study agronomy, and apparently did design 9 holes right off the bat.  I doubt that was any masterpiece of design.....Later, he parlayed that experience with getting a golf course built into pro/greenskeeper jobs at Ravisloe, North Shore, and Wykagl, probably touting it as an "added benefit" of hiring him over other pros.  He did some work and stayed on at a number of clubs. He also designed other courses. Cornish and Whitten list only ehco lake, lake Hopatcong and richmond (all in NY) in 1916-18, another dozen designs/remodels in the 20's and two courses in the 30's, with the last in 1937. A few are undated in the book.

It has been documented that NS got disenchanted with White just after construction, and it may be a result of him getting involved as Pres. of the PGA in 1916, and a design job at Richmond the same year were simply taking too much of his time away from his appointed duties as the club.

White was 75 when ASGCA formed.  Like Ross being made honorary President, his charter membership came well after his active days and was probably a sign of respect as much anything.  For the record, the old ASGCA minutes say he
seconded the motion to call it ASGCA, and then proposed that the first four years of board of governors be appointed by drawing the names out of a hat, and his was drawn first, so techincally, he was the first board of governors member in ASGCA history.

There is no doubt that he was a joiner and well rounded guy.  IMHO, there is no doubt that he had a bit of experience and a LOT of interest in designing and learning design from guys like Raynor and CBM.  He had one 9 hole design in Massachusset upon arrival and a remodel of undetermined complexity at Ravisloe in 1902 or shortly thereafter.  It seems no coincidence that his career started to pick up right after North Shore and snowballed (although nowhere near the pure numbers or quality of commissions as the big boys) in the Roaring 20's.  

Short version, I view his being associated with NS and Raynor/CBM as a springboard.  While Raynor was second bananna up until that point to CBM, he had CBM' endorsement and QUITE a resume of many of America's top courses.

Back to the question of did he have any input?  I think most here agree he did, in his position and because of his historically proven interest in becoming a gca (among other things!)  Were the suggestions heeded?  To a degree but nothing suggests he had any final say.  Was he hired as the gca?  The contracts say no.

Should he get any credit?  Not by my standards, but I feel like Tom Mac has a mission to spread out credit to relative unknowns and lesser contributors.  Again, to my way of thinking and based on all my experience as a modern day gca, I suspect that he shouldn't.  I also suspect that TMac won't quit his campaign until someone else agrees with him that White should get credit.

The conundrum here is that even if I agree with TMac (I have repeatedly said I see his point, even if I disagree) I don't think that is going to happen in a big way, either here, or at NS (although I have no idea what their tinking is)  In the end, a club has the right to credit or not credit the design (even with new owners).  They do have some moral obligation, I suppose to try to get it right (there are a lot of buildings that hopefully claim that FLWright designed them, which is wrong) but in the end, if they had a contract with Raynor, they can credit Raynor.

There doesn't have to be a villain here, and sometimes, I think Tmac is trying to find one, because just like politics, it easier to push an agenda if there is a villain to battle!  

[Tom MacWood]

Does anyone think the minutes as recorded are in error in that Raynor was not "...  the leading Golf Architect in the United States..." at the time as he was just starting his independent career and that  MacDonald was not "... the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction..." as he was more wll known as a golf architect?

Were the terms transposed?  Wasn't Raynor the engineer/construction guy for MacDonald,the architect?

Was there "puffing" involved?

I think Raynor and Macdonald were transposed in that statement. Raynor was just coming off the most sophisticated construction project in golf architecture history - Lido.

[Tom MacWood]

5.   On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own.

Phil
No wonder you are so confused...you have misquoted the March 13, 1915 statement:

“When we made our purchase, it was reported that our links measured about 6400 yards but we soon found out that these figures were entirely erroneous and, as a matter of fact, the actual measurement was only slightly over 5,000 yards. Even before we made our acquisition, we knew that in many respects the links were badly planned and that at some time a largely modified layout would have to be determined upon. The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States. This new course will measure about 6,400 yards, it will take in about fifteen acres of woodland and takes the fullest advantage of the natural advantages offered by the rolling ground which we own.”

Like I said before you have some really bizarre logic. Are you under the impression those diagrams, reflecting the design, hanging in the office of the Harmonie Club, were drawn up the afternoon of March 13, 1915. The only thing we know for sure is that they were created sometime prior to March 13, 1915, actually before February when construction began. It could have been in January '15 or December '14 or whenever during a few month period, that Raynor and White laid out/designed/routed the golf course.

Should CBM be given co-design credit?

[Tom MacWood]

They would not have laid out the course PRIOR to January 26, the date that course design plans were definitely finished by, because the membership had not approved the work to build the course before then, a course that would require them to, as is found in the notes dated December 23, 1914, more than a month BEFORE, that "taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course..."

You can't lay out a course without permission to do so and you don't do it if you don't know where its going. You CAN design a course on paper and show where it will be (routing) on the property BEFORE it is laid out. That this is what happened in this case based can be seen from the information found in the Board Minutes.

Phil
When reading laid out you are obviously choosing the construction meaning of the term, as opposed to the design/routing/diagraming meaning, which makes absolutely no sense based on the timing of the statement. See the exercise in post 751 for why it makes no sense.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We need an english teacher to clear up whether the author needed to change to multiple tense after deciding to lump Raynor and White into a run on sentence.  As per earlier analysis, in reality, the basic sentence reads:

The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course

If you really parse it, neither Raynor or White had anything to do with it!

I wonder why TMac has quoted this ONE piece of "so called evidence" on and on while ignoring the written contracts and job descriptions that exist? I also wonder why he never answers my questions, so I will fill in my own blanks, just for fun here.

Forget the Terrier comparisons.  From now on, I am comparing him to Johnny Cocharan, who was also expert at using less relevant and probably misleading facts to convince at least some people that something was true. You need a catchy slogan along the lines of "if it doesn't fit, you must aquit!"  How about, Mr. T Mac,

"The clubs are wrong, and for oh so long!"    

"The legend stands, with the wrong man!"

"History's bogus, we must refocus!"

"He drew no plans, but the pro's the man!"

"The gca got the cash, but made a dash!"

"Never trust an archie who resume is over 40 (courses....")



I could go on all day! Git er done!....I have a hunch, its time for lunch!

[Tom MacWood]

We need an english teacher to clear up whether the author needed to change to multiple tense after deciding to lump Raynor and White into a run on sentence.  As per earlier analysis, in reality, the basic sentence reads:

The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course

If you really parse it, neither Raynor or White had anything to do with it!

I wonder why TMac has quoted this ONE piece of "so called evidence" on and on while ignoring the written contracts and job descriptions that exist? I also wonder why he never answers my questions, so I will fill in my own blanks, just for fun here.

Forget the Terrier comparisons.  From now on, I am comparing him to Johnny Cocharan, who was also expert at using less relevant and probably misleading facts to convince at least some people that something was true. You need a catchy slogan along the lines of "if it doesn't fit, you must aquit!"  How about, Mr. T Mac,

"The clubs are wrong, and for oh so long!"    

"The legend stands, with the wrong man!"

"History's bogus, we must refocus!"

"He drew no plans, but the pro's the man!"

"The gca got the cash, but made a dash!"

"Never trust an archie who resume is over 40 (courses....")



I could go on all day! Git er done!....I have a hunch, its time for lunch!

As I pointed out to Phil it is ridiculous to read that statement and take away that the green committee laid out the golf course. You have to approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()