Jeff,
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread and so I missed your long and insulting post to me above. Sorry about that.
I don't think either you or Phil is stupid and I haven't attacked either one of you. I am not sure what is going on with Phil. He is not himself lately. As for you, you've never been all that into the facts, and I think I have just grown a bit tired of you constantly drawing conclusions based upon an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the record. I've grown used to your constant lectures on how I behave, and mostly just don't look at them. You've got plenty on your own plate in this regard so I hardly see you as a sage when it comes to these issues.
That said, I have no animosity toward you about this, but will admit it does get a bit old having to set the record straight after about all of your posts. I can see you resent me doing so, but I'll nonetheless continue. I don't do it for you so much as for anyone else who might stumble onto the post, see that a real designer has posted, and take what you present as fact as that when it often is not.
For example, here you berate me for only coming up with one document:
"You posting one document can't be construed as you having take the road of the high and mighty re: interest in history either."
You should really get your facts straight before you say such things. Why don't you go back and take a look? You might find I've done a more thorough job of making Phil's case than he has.
That said, as for the substance of this discussion, I've never taken a position, and I am out of it. I have no interest in discussing anything with Phil right now. Again, get your facts straight before you assuming TM's positions are mine. I do stand by what I said about Phil's accusation, and anyone who reads what TM wrote can see that Phil misunderstood it, but that has nothing to do with the substance at issue.
My recent questions to you were serious. I wasn't trying to be nasty. I really have no idea why you are here, or what your purpose is. Frankly, while you obviously like to express your opinion, you just don't seem all that interested in the details of what went on. So what gives? Why hang out with history geeks when it is obviously not your thing?
______________________________________________________
Dan Herrmann,
As for Oakmont, I think I addressed that last time you suggested that Fownes was a resounding amateur success from day one Surely the Fownes' were a great success, eventually, but it took them about a decade to pull it off. They were by no means inexperienced by the time Oakmont became a top course. But then maybe I am wrong. Is there anything the historical record that suggests that Oakmont was considered a top course as soon as it was built?
Also, you if you ever do actually research it, you might find that there were others around Oakmont who were well qualified to help Mr. Fownes out were he ever in need.
As for your graphic above, if you pile onto an insult graphically instead of verbally, is it less of an insult? Is it less of a mean and unnecessary swipe? Is there some sort of cartoon-graphic-exception to the love you preach?