[Tom MacWood]

Dan
How long have you been participating on GCA?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
I think you may be selling Worthington a little short. How much time did he spend overseas studying the great golf courses?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Macwood,

His time overseas has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not he was involved in the design, layout and construction of Shawnee. He wasn't. By the way, what you fail to realize is that Tilly spent MORE time overseas srom 1895-1901 studying the great courses than Worthington. I am very well-aware with how much time he spent out of country and even his honors bestowed upon him by the Queen for that neat piece of 200-mile pipe and pump work which saved the lives of the British army by getting them water when they had none in the Sudan.

Tom, admit that you are simply grasping at straws and trying to "reason" something through based solely upon little snippets of information that has NOTHING at all to do with this question.

And by the way, I write about the wheres and whens of how Worthington learned the game and his passionate interest in it in the book.

Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you.

If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this:

Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!

[DMoriarty]

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?  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

"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."

What a most disingenuous and self-serving load of crap! You have CONTINUOUSLY shown arrogance with your sarcastic insults to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, not just me. In fact, even when someone does agree with you and even supports something that you state and correct Tom Paul by name while doing so as I did on the other thread, what do you do? You rip into them as you did me! Go back and take an HONEST look at what you wrote and the posts that followed. The irony in them is that it would end up with me being CORRECT in the date you got mad at me for correcting you on!

No David, don't play the aggrieved "I've done nothing wrong to Phil or anyone on here and no one would think so" nonsense.

Look at how that type of crap plays in your statement, "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."

Answer me this then. If that  were true why have so many on this and other threads given it to Tom specifically stating that he DID call me a LIAR! Are they all simply stupid? Are they all simply misunderstanding Tom? No David, you are disingenuous in the extreme.

Finally, let us say that I "misundersdtood" Tom. Explain this. After everything I have said about my belief that his ACCUSATION that I was BLUFFING was his calling me a liar, why would Tom the Mac then, knowing my strong feelings on that very point, just a few posts ago on this very thread say, ONCE AGAIN, "Me thinks you protest too much. You are bluffing."?

Am I MISUNDERSTANDING poor Tom the Mac once again? Who are you kidding? You know what he said, what he meant, the purpose for starting this thread, and the attacks made. You know because you've supported every one of them.

And no David, you never made a "more thorough job of making Phil's case than" that Tilly was the designer of Shawnee than I have on this or any other thread. That statement almost made me laugh...

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, you have attacked me.  If you don't think so, perhaps we could put that to a gca.com vote to see how others percieve your posts.  I think it would be similar to the 12-0 record of documents saying Tillie designed Shawnee vs Worthington. At least I admit I have gone over the line with you a few times.  No doubt, some of this is "Pot meets Kettle".  I agree staying out of this crap makes a lot more sense for both of us, and actually have no animosity at all towards you.  It should be a good natured argument, if handled correctly.

Good to know you don't think I am stupid, but seriously, I have read all the documents posted here and made my own independent analysis.  Disagreement doesn't mean a non understanding of the facts as.....

You do make an interesting point about me which might bear some understanding on misunderstandings.  I do have a designers personality, and yes, that leans towards big picture rather than details.  There is no doubt that people like me need people like TMac to dig and dig, becase we just wouldn't do it otherwise and most on gca.com really appreciate those who do that kind of digging.  As a gca, in truth, anyone who takes that kind of interest ought to be a friend of mine.

But, its just as true that those detail seeking peronsalities often have trouble with the big picture thinking, too. The saying "Can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind.  A recent instance is you (IMHO) trying to make a mountain out of a molehill because Bailey was in charge of putting together then honorary dinner for Wilson.  I looked at it and said "its a frikken chicken dinner" and you somehow parse it out as him not knowing a damn thing about the history of the design in enough detail to be meaningful.  All it does is show the mindset of the club at the time that Wilson did a lot of work on the project.  It really proves no ones design attribution point to a level of detail that you would desire.  It is what it is.  Now, is the detail analysis you did on the meaning behind that letter really worth the detail you put in it?  

Another is your defense of TMac's non apology.  You could parse every word of that and conclude that he apologized based on the words.  In truth, other humans who are a bit more sensitive to context and nuance over the actual words, would more than likely say (if we put it to a gca.com vote or brought in human relations experts) that it was a half hearted, admit nothing you don't have to apology which Phil would not find satisfying or appropriate.  You might be right in some technical sense in backing up TMac, but there is more than technical correctness involved.  We can leave it at that.

In both cases, personality strengths are also weaknesses since we all process info a certain way and true understanding requires a broader look from different perspectives.  And, its often a case where detail type thought process people and conceptualizers often have trouble communicating and understanding each other.  To be honest, I think that is a large part of the problem here, more than either approach is inherently wrong.

Thanks and good night.....

[DMoriarty]

Phil, You should know that I am not reading your posts, so there is no need for your waste your time writing them.  Thanks. 

Jeff,

This is not golf course design.  You just can't dynamite the facts into oblivion whenever they don't match your "big picture" idea of how you want things to be.  Yet that is what you do again and again. 

Take your bizarre presentation of my use of the Baily letter.    You are so intent on making your "Big Picture" point that you have twisted my views on the Baily letter 180 degrees, and are ironically trying to use own argument against me as if I believed that this letter was the key to understanding who did what.  It is almost as if you think I am Mike Cirba!
--  Do you really believe I am trying to use this irrelevant dinner invitation to  "prove" various design attributions to some high level?   Where do you get this stuff?   Every time this thing comes up I have argued that it is irrelevant to proving anything about anyone's design attribution to any level of specificity.   In other words, I have consistently maintained EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ATTRIBUTE TO ME.   But you have a "big picture" point to make, and you aren't going to let mere facts get in your way!   
-- It was YOU who introduced this irrelevancy into the conversation again!  I had asked what Merion's internal records said about Hugh Wilson's specific involvement in the planning process before April of 1911, and this is what you came up with!   A dinner invitation from a scrapbook, NOT FROM MERION'S RECORD, WRITTEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TIME IN QUESTION, AND HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUGH WILSON'S SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE DESIGN PROCESS!.   

Also, my last post had nothing to do with what you describe as TomM's "non-apology."  Phil misunderstood Tom's initial "bluffing" statement; which was about whether these internal records backed up as Phil's overall point.  [As an aside, Phil has now backed away from implying that these internal records make his overall point, and this in and of itself strongly suggests that TomM had a point when he said he thought Phil was bluffing as to whether the internal documents made his point for him.]

As I have said many times before,  IF YOU HAVE TO FUDGE THE FACTS TO MAKE YOUR POINT, THEN YOU SHOULD PROBABLY RECONSIDER YOUR POINT.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Old analysis of my problem with David: Different communication style....

New analysis: DM is simply an argumentative as**!@* who would argue that the sky isn't blue just to piss people off, and won't admit/can't believe that he is wrong about anything, a no matter how simple.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You should know that any time you misrepresent anything that I've said or make a comment that "something is wrong with Phil" or other crap like that, I will most definitely respond. Your welcome.

Jeff, I think you've certainly stated the truth and in many ways understated it. I'd tell you to quote me on that but then David will avoid reading what you wrote!

[DMoriarty]

Again Jeff, the facts don't support your conclusion.

I notice you just called me an asshole.    Now that is a good example of an inappropriate attack.  Pointless, unproductive, entirely unrelated to anything at issue, not intended to advance the conversation.  Really nothing more than lashing out emotionally.  

Thanks for making that point for me.

[Phil_the_Author]

Why David,

There must be something wrong with you. Obviously you must not be yourself as of late. How could ANYONE think that Jeff called you an "asshole?"

You MISUNDERSTOOD what Jeff said. He stated, and I'll highlight it this time so even you can read it, "DM is simply an argumentative as**!@*"

Now I know I can be a little slow in the understanding, but I don't believe that ANYONE out here would see "as**!@*" as the word "asshole". How can you say such things about such a well-meaning member of the board. You simply MISUNDERSTOOD him!

Then again, you'll just claim that you didn't read this post anyway so what does it matter... 

 

[TEPaul]

"I notice you just called me an asshole.    Now that is a good example of an inappropriate attack.  Pointless, unproductive, entirely unrelated to anything at issue, not intended to advance the conversation.  Really nothing more than lashing out emotionally."



Actually Moriarty, Jeffrey did not call you and asshole; you're the one who said he said you're an asshole. Jeffrey said you are an as*****

But nice ASSUMPTION on your part!   

But if you want to talk about good examples of and inappropriate attack, or a pointless, unproductive, entirely unrelated to anything at issue, not intended to advance the conversation and really nothing more than lashing out emotionally----then LET'S TALK ABOUT YOU calling me a drunk, liar and creep on HERE!

How about THEM APPLES---you unreconstructed as******!?   

[Tom MacWood]

Tom the Macwood,

His time overseas has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not he was involved in the design, layout and construction of Shawnee. He wasn't. By the way, what you fail to realize is that Tilly spent MORE time overseas srom 1895-1901 studying the great courses than Worthington. I am very well-aware with how much time he spent out of country and even his honors bestowed upon him by the Queen for that neat piece of 200-mile pipe and pump work which saved the lives of the British army by getting them water when they had none in the Sudan.

How much time, and when, did the two men spend overseas studying the great courses prior to Shawnee?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Macwood,

You seem to have left a little bit out of my statement. It ended with:

"Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you... If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this: Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"

So you want answers to your questions? This from the man who complained on the other thread just now that there are too few "searchers" doing real research on here! I'm happy to provide answers to any and all questions but will only give them to those who are polite, who want to DUSCUSS and not DISPUTE and who actually want to learn. Most importantly of all, they have to be able to admit when they are mistaken, some thing that I have no problem doing.

If you think that statement is self-serviong crap then start a thread and ask the group for any and all to tell their experiences in asking me Tilly questions and my attitude toward helping them. Just last night I got a call fromk someone who was looking for some information about a Devereaux Emmet course that Tilly redesigned. I gave him the phone number of the person who runs the club to make arrangements for him to tour it and study it. What he doesn't know is that I followed it up with a phone call to that person to let them know he would be calling. He will be treated very well. I've done similar things for many others.

So Tom, you want me to answer you? Then do two things. Answer the questions posed to you and stop avoiding them. More importantly, PROPERLY APOLOGIZE! You have some nerve continuing to ask questions and ignore those asked of you before you slandered me. To do so now without properly apologizing is the height of hypocrisy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Deleted, with great reluctance.....

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I would gladly explain it to him if he asks nicely...  

If any post on this site defines the ending of the Master card commercials, that most definitely does!

PRICELESS!

[DMoriarty]

Ran must very proud of how these gentleman treat his website.

David,

If you believe I called you an argumentative asshole, I apologize.  I don't believe I called you an argumentative asshole. I said you were bluffing when you implied that Mike Cirba had no idea what Bailey knew of the design process when he posted a frikken chicken dinner invite to show appreciation for Hugh Wilson's efforts.

In truth, if I was tempted to call you an argumentative asshole, I would have posted something like this:

David, you are an argumentative asshole......  Stop...... More strongly worded message to follow when I have time!  Stop......

I will also admit I considered a whole host of other monikers, but they never got typed out.  And that I was surprised that when I was somewhat conciliatory, you lashed out at percieved slights, while when I was more direct, well, you were more subdued.  I really don't understand that reaction, but what the heck, as you tell us, I am dum as a stump anyway and can't grasp basic concepts!  Such is life! You say it was an emotional reaction.  While you are astute, you lack the skills to comprehend basic situational, comparative humor, at least as far as I can tell.

But, now that you know I thought even for a milisecond about calling you some kind of name before deciding NOT to call you an argumentative asshole, I apologize.  I don't believe I thought about calling you an argumentative asshole (and more) enough to send a stronger, more detailed rebuttal argument, and I am not sure you are able to fully grasp what I type, or are yourself these days, so I am not sure that even warrants a full blown (and by that I mean half hearted) apology.  I mean, if you don't understand me, why should I apologize for it?  Standard logic on this site dictates that, no?

In fact, since it would have only been a theory (same as analysis in this context) that you are an argumentative asshole (and more), I am told that this needs no additional explanation around here, whereas if it was an established fact that you were an argumentative asshole (and more), I would be required proof positive.

Also, since it would have been only my interpretation of your posts that you are an argumentative asshole I think, based on other posts around here, that I would be entitled to demand others consider my interpretation as FACT, without any more supporting documents, at least as far as I know.  I mean, when its only a theory, anything goes around here, right?  And, clearly, you would believe that there would have been no need for me to travel to California to dig deep myself and find source material to confirm that you were an argumentative asshole, right?  Lastly, I think you can agree that since I didn't call you an argumentative asshole, that no harm comes to your reputation.  And, if it happens that I mistyped tense, words, or something else where this post implies that you are an argumentative asshole (which I hope to God it doesn't because that is not what I really think) then I am sure that everyone here will realize that this is an initial draft, subject to revision and an ongoing work in progress as more facts become available to me.

But, IF it turns out you are an argumentative asshole, then there can be no argument about the fact that I discovered it first!  I expect many others will try to jump on the bandwagon IF it turns out you are an argumentative asshole and claim they discovered the true facts before I did.  But, in truth, maybe they did.  I mean, it all comes down to whose words and writings you believe, no?  I mean, lets think about this.  Let's suppose you wake up tomorrow to a headline in the LA Times saying "Moriarity called an argumentative a#*$%^".  Would you believe that, or say, the thoughts of TePaul, Phil Young, Mike Cirba, etc. and others who WERE REALLY HERE when you allegedly got called  an argumentative a#*$%^?  If you knew the reporter got it second hand, or had the belief that anyone on golfclubatlas.com wanted to spread an unfounded legend about David Moriarity being an argumentative a#*$%^, I mean, who would you believe?  I mean really?  Who am I kidding.....you would twist the words of the paper around to PROVE to your satisfaction that you were called an argumentative asshole, despite all the evidence to the contrary, no?

And that is EXACTLY how crappy history gets written, when people with an agenda let that get in the way of FACT!  They may not know they are perpetrating an unsupportable legend, and furthering a conspiracy started by everyone involved.  And then, 100 years from now, someone may actually come on here and mistakenly actually call you an argumentative asshole while you lay in your grave!

So, I may not have gotten my point across eariler, but then, I am dum as a stump, not much at analyzing things, and of course, too big picture oriented, and clearly not myself lately.  But, in no way, shape, or form, did I call you an argumentative asshole (and/or more).  I don't know why you can't comprehend that the written record doesn't support your belief that I called you an argumentative asshole (and more). And if it couldn't have happened, we all know from the logic put forth in certain quarters here, that it didn't happen, double negative notwithstanding.  

Not to mention the fact that IF you think I called you an argumentative asshole, then I accuse you of hiding facts from me, playing games with source materials, and the like.  Its obvious that I am putting up with a lot of pure BS here.  You transposed several symbols into letters spelling the word asshole, not me, buster!  Why did you miss those few letters in the translation?  Why were you playing games with the source material, buddy?

And, as I have told you before, I have no animosity towards you at all.  As far as I am concerned, this is just a little humour and good discussion between old gca.com friends!  And I do respect you to the degree that IF I called you an argumentative asshole (which I didn't) I would have to admit and celebrate the fact that you are a WORLD CLASS asshole, and I mean absolutely the bestest internet asshole I have known.  Surely, IF I said you were an asshole,  I would have been sure NOT to have left that part out, simply out of respect for your contributions, posting style, etc. that you exhibit consistently on gca. com.  David, if you are an argumentative asshole (and more), you are the man!  You are simply the BEST! But, of course, I DIDN'T call you an asshole (and never would) so I didn't mention that.  And, that's my interpretation of WHAT I WROTE, so you are obligated at all costs to agree that I DIDN'T call you and asshole.  I mean, its clear that if you don't, well then you just don't understand, right?  You just can't understand what a huge compliment I paid you!

So, once again, if you believe I called you an argumentative asshole, I apologize.  I don't believe I called you an argumentative asshole.  There is nothing in the record, so far as I know, that proves that.

That ought to be a satisfactory apology and I trust you find it 110% satisfactory, and that it makes you feel better about you, me, and your position on this internet site.  I wrote it using everything YOU taught me about human relations and proper decorum on this site.  I trust we can move on from this misunderstanding, caused by your communication style and inability to process information, feelings, and thoughts of others who might enjoy this board.  

And for that, I apologize on your behalf, which you should find quite satisfactory again.  If you don't understand what a huge and generous offer I have made, I am sure Phil Young and maybe TePaul will graciously explain it to you, just in case you haven't been yourself recently.  I think they would enjoy that, but who am I to speak for them?  Really, I need to quit pretending that I speak for them, because I have NO connection to them, or any club they belong to, or any thoughts they may have.

Perhaps the best resolution would be for you and me to collaborate on an IMO piece called "The missing assholes of golfclubatlas.com."

Again, I apologize for you feeling like I called you an argumentative asshole.  On a website like this, there is really no reason for something like that to happen, don't you agree?

Sleep well, you big old Teddy Bear of an argumentative a$%#**^&, you!.  Perhaps we can renew our lively discussions soon.  I look forward to it, but will be on a plane most of the day, tomorrow, but hope to check in tomorrow night to see what gems you offer up in response. Until then......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Oh well, there goes the need to delete it!

[Phil_the_Author]

Truer words have never been spoken! "Ran must very proud of how these gentleman treat his website."

[Tom MacWood]

Tom the Macwood,

His time overseas has NOTHING at all to do with whether or not he was involved in the design, layout and construction of Shawnee. He wasn't. By the way, what you fail to realize is that Tilly spent MORE time overseas srom 1895-1901 studying the great courses than Worthington. I am very well-aware with how much time he spent out of country and even his honors bestowed upon him by the Queen for that neat piece of 200-mile pipe and pump work which saved the lives of the British army by getting them water when they had none in the Sudan.

Phil
The 200-mile pipe is interesting, but I don't think it is as important to the subject of Shawnee as his past design experience and his time overseas playing the great classic courses. Do you? Why did you ignore Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book?

[Tom MacWood]

"and the fact that he was heavily involved in golf course maintenance" That is patently incorrect. The only aspect of golf course "maintenance" that he was invovled in before and after Shawnee was the Worthington Mower Company. The first gang-mower that he invented was a horse-drawn one in 1906 which cut the fairway grass at Manwalamink. That was it. He was NOT "heavily involved" in golf course maintenance as he had both a crew and soperintendent caring for the course and his properties. You can find that information in the records. That was it until 1919 when he developed a gas-powered tractor for pulling the mowers and expanded the gang-mower idea.

You don't think developing the first gang mower and starting the Worthington Mower Company translates into being heavily involved in maintenance? That is similar to saying the Wright brothers were not involved in aviation.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Instead of this innuendo, could you simply show us any evidence that Worthington was involved in the design?

You and David rely on less factual evidence in your posts than a supermarket tabloid!

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

These are the very last questions that I will answer for you UNTIL you BOTH PROPERLY APOLOGIZE and ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!
1- "You don't think developing the first gang mower and starting the Worthington Mower Company translates into being heavily involved in maintenance? "

NO I don't. I think it means being heavily involved in business and inventing a solution to a need that he saw. I think it means that he wanted to see the grass cut efficiently and evenly since his first means of doing so, a flock of goats and a goatherd, didn't work.

2- "The 200-mile pipe is interesting, but I don't think it is as important to the subject of Shawnee as his past design experience and his time overseas playing the great classic courses. Do you?"

YES I do. The reason is because Shawnee is far more than a golf course and was FAR MORE THAN A GOLF COURSE to Worthington. For example, where does the INN get its water from? Seems like a dumb question now doesn't it, but when you learn why it is a MAJOR part of the story. For just as Worthington designed the water pipe in the desert he also designed and oversaw the building of the pipeline to the FRESH WATER LAKE that is up in the woods on the mountainside of Buckwood Park. That line is STILL used today to provide the Inn with its water. You'd think there'd be plenty of fresh water with the Delaware River and the Binniekill right there: but for Worthington who had a passionate love of fresh spring water there wasn't. By the way, there is the FIRST of the many thin gs that Worthington was doing during that 1906-1911 period which would PREVENT him from having ANY part in designing the golf course.

3- "Why did you ignore Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book?"

Sorry Tom, but you asimply don't get it do you. A biography of an particular individual, in this case Tilly, is simply that... a biography of THAT INDIVIDUAL. There was absolutely NO REASON that Worthington's "design and overseas experience" as you put it" needed to be in the book. It IS in the Shawnee book, and before you begin to think that is in anyway a response to the incorrect things that you've posted about his involvement in the design process let me correct that. It's not and was written weeks ago and is a VERY minor part to his story anyway.

Now, YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS (I've increased them):

1- WHY are you avoiding answering my questions?
2- WHAT is your source for your information regarding Worthington's vast "design experience?" Note, I didn't state what were the courses you credit him with designing but rather what is the source, newspaper article, golf magazine article, etc... that contains the information.
3- And for the THIRD TIME, ""Finally, once again you are back to your ruse of ignoring proofs given, information posted and/or shown and AVOIDING answering direct questions asked of you... If you have questions and want answers you need to answer the ones asked of you. So, answer this: Finally Tom, do YOU know what WORTHINGTON was doing from 1906-1911 that would PREVENT HIS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DESIGNING OR LAYING OUT THE GOLF COURSE? Now there's a question that provides answers to everything! By the way, I do!"

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

There is NONE, NOTHING at all. I would have been more than happy to share with Tom privately, as I have with a few others what I was allowed to share it on this, that is, exactly what the original Board Minutes said. I would have made arrangements for him to visit Shawnee and get access to them to see for himself. HE COULD HAVE FOUND OUT WITH A SINGLE PHONE CALL! Now that is gone and NOT because of anything that I have said since I didn't ever bring the subject up. Rob Howell, the Shawnee general manager and also a member of the golf club, is the person who GAVE EVERYTHING TO ME! All those documents and information that Tom accused me of LYING about having. That is why I told Tom to call him several times, but he DIDN'T! Rob is a "lurker" on here and has been watching these discussions for some time now. He is well aware of Tom & David all on his own. So if Tom had simply apologized for his "accusations" toward me this would have ended long ago and he'd be sitting in Ohio a much better informed person. Of course he would have the information that Worthington wasn't invovled in the design of Shawnee, but he would have had it.

To paraphrase another great philosopher, this one from the planet Vulcan, Tom is, always has been and always will be the... Macwood!

[Dan Herrmann]

I wonder which ODG design is next to get "The Treatment"?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()