[Phil_the_Author]

Andy,

As a final answer to the question posted in your reply #92, here is an early post card. It is a colorized print of an early aerial clearly showing the practice hole/green that was mislabelled as 18. You can clearly see the new 18th hole on the opposite side of the Inn.



By the way, do you know what that building is in the far upper right-hand corner?

[DMoriarty]

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

Dan Herrmann,

What "treatment?"   Is there a point to posts like this, or would you just feel left out if you refrained from piling on with your pals? And speaking of piling on . . .  Again, your self-righteous gaze has  gone blind when it comes the abhorrent behavior of those you have the nerve to refer to as "true gentleman."

Like witless sharks to koolade in the water, your "true gentlemen" have been swarming in insults and boorish behavior, a virtual feeding frenzy of gratuitous and tangential personal attacks.  

Is this the "respect and love" you beg of me?  

I should be used to it by now, but I am always a bit taken aback by the silence from you and the other hypocrites who defend these "true gentleman."  I am not too religious, myself, but I always thought the goal was supposed to be to get your own house in order.  

What sort of "religious upbringing" taught you condescension and sententious priggishness toward your enemies, while also teaching you to condone, encourage and even pile on the boorish behavior of your buddies?

[TEPaul]

Dandy Dan Danderino:

Excellent use of a term.

As Mark Twain famously said: "Nothing in the world can withstand the ONSLAUGHT of---HUMOR!"

Unfortunately, there are some who tend to view it as sententious priggishness, condescension, boorishness and such. Their problem for sure and certainly not yours and mine. Perhaps it has something to do with the well-known SEVENTEEN STRAINS of insecurity but nevertheless, even they can never withstand the onslaught of HUMOR even if and when they don't even recognize it for what it is!!  

[TEPaul]

"What sort of "religious upbringing" taught you condescension and sententious priggishness toward your enemies, while also teaching you to condone, encourage and even pile on the boorish behavior of your buddies?"


Mssr. Moriarty:

I believe what you refer to as some sort of "religuous upbringing" that you just assigned to Dandy Dan Danderino's remark and term ("The Treatment") is either the ethical affects of Supreme Pennsylvania Quakerism that suggests that all people be treated with extreme equanimity or else it is the vestiges of Noblese Oblige that are embued in Dandy Dan and me that requires that one treats Cobblers and Kings the very same way whether it be like Kings or whether it be like Cobblers!

And being such equanimitous men of Good Will and Mirth we do not recognize the word or concept of "enemies." To us, all men are created equal (or at least should be afforded "equal opportunity" such as how to find the door of Merion's Archives) and treated equally whether they be Go**G**s or A*******


And THEN there was this perfectly delightful adage one should always strive to live by that was coigned years ago by Dring Wetherill, the brother of debutante superstar Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill which went: "If you can't feel free to deck your friends then what the hell are friends for?"

[JMEvensky]

And THEN there was this perfectly delightful adage one should always strive to live by that was coigned years ago by Dring Wetherill, the brother of debutante superstar Fernanda Wanamaker Wetherill which went: "If you can't feel free to deck your friends then what the hell are friends for?"

No thread is really complete without an appearance from Fern and Dring.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Let's substitute, for argument's sake "The Treatment" with "Critical Review of Traditionally Accepted History, With an Eye Toward Changing the Dominant Paradigm".

Would that be better?

Mike,
You wrote, "You and David rely on less factual evidence in your posts than a supermarket tabloid!"  Keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch has become a media multi-millionaire by publishing such tabloids.  Somebody's buying the product (although nobody would readily admit to it). 

[DMoriarty]

David,
Let's substitute, for argument's sake "The Treatment" with "Critical Review of Traditionally Accepted History, With an Eye Toward Changing the Dominant Paradigm".

Would that be better?

No, not really.  It doesn't adequately convey your passive-aggressive attempt at nastiness.

How about the rest of my questions?   Are you going to explain why you are quick to scold MacWood and I for anything you might construe as bad behavior, yet you snigger with the rest of them when your "true gentlemen" show their true nature?

On second thought  . . . For argument's sake, let's substitute my last question with "Why have you behaved like a self-righteous hypocrite?"

Would that be better?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

To quote a once-wise contributor to this website "If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion get the hell off of it..."

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

As an inducement to get you to finally answer my questions I thought I'd post a photo of Worthington's deep involvement in golf course maintenance for you:

[TEPaul]

Phil:

Some indepth independent research indicates that horse was named MacWood.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Funny you should mention that, I understand that was actually branded onto his backside on the side that isn't showing.

[Tom MacWood]

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
According to Worthington's obituary in the NY Times he collaborated in organizing St. Andrews GC on the Hudson, and later developed other golf courses. According to the article his interest in mowing golf courses led to the development of that mower, and ultimately the Worthington Mower Co. If I'm not mistaken he is cited in Cornish & Whitten for his contribution to golf course development and maintenance equipment. It is ridiculous to claim he wasn't heavily involved in course maintenance.

I asked you why you ignored Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book, not the Shawnee book. Why did you ignore it? Are we to assume you also ignored it your forthcoming Shawnee book.

I never said Worthington had vast design experience. I said he had designed at least three courses prior to Shawnee. No, I don't know what would have being doing between 1906-1911 that would prevented him from co-designing Shawnee, especially since he was walking the site with Tilly in the winter of 1909. Please explain.

[Andy Hughes]

Phil, thanks for the postcard, fascinating!  The 18th green in that picture looks to be where I recall the 18th (a long par 3) being in my younger days

I do not know what the building in the upper righthand corner is. Hard to even see a building up in there. What is it?  Is that area currently part of Doak's short course?  What do you suppose that colorful square is sitting where the range currently is?

PS Pity this thread has to be so ugly. This course has a special place in my heart for several reasons, and I look forward to your book Phil. Any idea on a publication date?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom The Mac,

I apologize (something that it seems that it is impossible for you to do) for not answering this post sooner. I was out of town doing research physically AT a club.

You stated, “According to Worthington's obituary in the NY Times he collaborated in organizing St. Andrews GC on the Hudson, and later developed other golf courses.”

So Tom, instead of TELLING us what is stated in the article, why don’t you POST it? Isn't that what you take others to task for continuously on here? Yet that seems to be something you don't feel is necessary for you to do. If you did, maybe a thinking person might see it a bit differently than you do. Let me give you a bit of help by quoting the entire few relevant paragraphs:

“Worthington knew golf. Long before the ancient game was known I this country he played in Scotland when the old feather ball was in use, and brought some back to this country…”

Are you kidding me? When was Worthington born? January 6, 1854. So WHEN did he play golf in Scotland that was “BEFORE the ancient game was known in this country?” Golf balls and clubs were being advertised in the New York Times in the 1700’s! I think the writer wasn’t exactly accurate there…

He went on, “On his estate at Irvington-on-Hudson he built 6 holes…” That is true, 6 holes were built on his estate, but since he had just taken over the Worthington Pump and Machinery Company at his father’s death, I don’t think he was out there with a shovel. No, he had someone build it for him. Did he DESIGN it? NO ONE KNOWS! But I agree with you in thinking that he did. Where we probably differ is that I believe that it was a simple and rudimentary course of no apparent distinction.

“… and collaborated in the organization of one of the first golf clubs on these shores, at St. Andrews, Mt. Hope, New York. Later he helped develop the Ardsley Golf Club at Ardsley, New York…”

Now Tom, be honest here. WHERE in any of that does it mention designing or laying out a golf course? It doesn’t. Once again you fail to realize what Worthington was ACTUALLY DOING during these years. His actual involvement was as one of the founding members and NOT as someone either putting pen to paper and designing a course, walking with stakes in hand and laying out a course or even overseeing the work being done. If you have ANYTHING that says otherwise POST IT!

“About this time Worthington took the game of golf to Delaware Water Gap near his mountain retreat of Buckwood Park. He supervised the design and construction of 9 holes for the Caladeno Golf Club and followed this hobby by laying out 9 holes on his private grounds at Shawnee. His last contribution to the game was his championship course for the Shawnee Country Club…”

Yes, he actually did design and physically lay out two courses; first the 9 holes at Caladeno and the second the 9 holes “on his private grounds at Shawnee.” Now before you get too excited by that last phrase, that is referring to his HOME (hence the term “private grounds”) of Manwalamink where he loved with his family. The “mountain retreat of Buckwood Park” was his HUNTING LODGE! He spent time there with friends (including Tilly) from which they would go hunting. It was NOT his permanent residence as you have stated in the past, but that isn’t worth discussing at this point. You can read all about it in the coming book and then argue until you’re blue in the face if that makes you happy.

So consider the SPECIFICITY of what it says about those two courses ONLY! None of the first ones mentioned nor SHAWNEE itself, the single greatest golf course he was associated with, NONE of them were said to have been designed and or laid out by him where as Caladenon and Manwalamink specifically were. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that they were different from the others in that regard. Actually the question that should be asked is WHY did Worthington have such a personal involvement in these two courses and NOT in the others?

Simple… By the time he moved to Shawnee he had RETIRED and SOLD the Worthington Pump and Machinery Company when he did those two courses! Was he retired when Shawnee was being designed and built (including the Inn)? NO! He had already started THREE NEW BUSINESSES including the Worthington Mower Company and the Worthington AUTOMOBILE Company! He was building STEAM-powered autos which he would use at the Inn to fetch visitors with who arrived by train! I’ll let you do a bit of your own research and find out the THIRD company… Let’s just say he was a LITTLE bit busy!

The article continues with, “The matter of maintenance of these golf courses was ever uppermost in his mind…” It goes on to mention the “Scotsman” and his herd of goats he brought over to keep the grass in check and then his invention of the mowers and the founding of the Worthington Mower Company. I hate to tell you this Tom, but again you read far more into this than what actually occurred.

“According to the article his interest in mowing golf courses led to the development of that mower, and ultimately the Worthington Mower Co. If I'm not mistaken he is cited in Cornish & Whitten for his contribution to golf course development and maintenance equipment. It is ridiculous to claim he wasn't heavily involved in course maintenance.”

Tom, creating a business AFTER every course (except Shawnee) that is mentioned that you have stated he was responsible for designing and building has absolutely NOTHING to do with the act od designing and building them! Cornish & Whitten were correct in their citing him for his contributions to golf course maintenance. However, the fact remains that he ONLY created a small horse-drawn tractor (see photo in earlier post) BEFORE Shawnee was open for play. He didn’t produce his large gang-mowers and the tractors to pull them until the late teens! So Tom, is “maintenance experience” had NOTHING to do with the design and creation of Shawnee.

Once again you have the balls to ask me a question and even go so far to say “Why did you ignore it” when I have told you numerous times that I will no longer respond to your question until you properly apologize to me… and yet you CONTINUOUSLY IGNORE THAT! Still, the question you ask and the accusation that I’ve ignored you is so ludicrous that I simply must comment.

You asked, “I asked you why you ignored Worthington's design experience and overseas experience in your Tilly book, not the Shawnee book. Why did you ignore it? Are we to assume you also ignored it your forthcoming Shawnee book.”

Tom, how STUPID are you? I not only didn’t IGNORE it, I CLEARLY ANSWERED IT just above. How about READING what I actually write for a change?
Here it is:

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

Sorry Tom, but you simply don't get it do you. A biography of a 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.

Finally, you stated that you had, “never said Worthington had vast design experience. I said he had designed at least three courses prior to Shawnee. No, I don't know what would have being doing between 1906-1911 that would prevented him from co-designing Shawnee, especially since he was walking the site with Tilly in the winter of 1909. Please explain.”

Really now? Then WHO wrote thios on the Top Courses thread in post #138 while ironically QUOTING from a post you would later deny having read:

Quote from: Philip Young on September 13, 2010, 09:13:14 PM
Tom the Mac,

I don't know how true that may be as you directly responded to PARTS of posts of mine wherein the question was raised, but one more time:

You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine] 

In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?

"His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience."

I’m sorry, maybe “vast” was the wrong word, but you certainly stated that Worthington had a “GREAT DEAL of EXPERIENCE” and even referred to him as Tilly’s “ASSOCIATE” in the design and building of Shawnee. You also made reference to his design experience in answers to others such as Mike Cirba.

No Tom, You simply are trying to back out of what you stated. Say you were wrong; it won’t hurt at all. You were. So what? It means nothing except when you won’t admit it and that compounds everything and you lose credibility.

Now, APOLOGIZE because by ignoring this you prove yourself to be a very little man when you then accuse me of IGNORING YOUR QUESTION’S when I didn’t!

[Phil_the_Author]

Hi Andy,

I was away for a few days and missed your post. You wrote, "I do not know what the building in the upper righthand corner is. Hard to even see a building up in there. What is it?"

That is actually Fort Manawalamink, the house that Worthington bought, restored and lived in. If you can picture how the present road that leads to it is actually a few blocks PAST the Shawnee General Store then you'll get a general idea of just how far out this postcard view extends and how far upwards it really dooesn't. That is why it isn't part of the Doak' short course. You're getting fooled by the location of the entrance road as the one that comes down today and where Doak's course is was built many years later.

"What do you suppose that colorful square is sitting where the range currently is?" It's two things. The FIRST swimming pool and the first tennis court. Remember, this is a hand colorized print of a black and white photograph. The painter saw the two squares and simply thought they were BOTH pools!

PS Pity this thread has to be so ugly. This course has a special place in my heart for several reasons, and I look forward to your book Phil. Any idea on a publication date?

Yes. It is tentatively scheduled for a May 2011 release to coincide with the celebrations being planned for the 100th anniversary on May 23rd.

[Tom MacWood]

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
No, I don't know what would have being doing between 1906-1911 that would prevented him from co-designing Shawnee, especially since he was walking the site with Tilly in the winter of 1909. Please explain.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
You wrote that vast post to argue that Worthington only designed two and not three courses before the Shawnee project? With the jury being out on who designed the third course on his family's Irvington, NY estate? Since he designed the other course on his other estate chances are he designed that one too. But let just say he only designed two courses before Shawnee, the logic still holds that he would have involved himself in the design of Shawnee because he had design experience and Tilly did not.

By the way Worthington's father died in 1880 so I  don't think he had just taken over the company at the time the 6-hole course was built. In fact he sold his interest in that company in 1889 so chances are he was retired at the time he built that particular course, and no I don't believe he was holding a shovel.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

Once again you show how little you know about Worthington and Shawnee.

First of all, WHY did he "sell his interest in that company" as you put it? Could it because he consolidated it into a NEW and MUCH LARGER COMPANY in which he was the Chief Executive Officer? Sorry Tom, but he didn't retire in 1889 despite whatever "chances" or strained logic you are using to come up with that statement. I know it because again, I have the records from several sources and know exactly when he DID RETIRE as well as when he CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT. Those dates were only 4 years apart. Go ahead and look up that information since you have done such a marvelous job of researching this. Oh yes, that information will also be found in the Shawnee book.  

I "wrote that vast post" (good play on words there!) to REFUTE YOUR statement that "His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience." He had some, and of that, FAR LESS than what you attribute to him. He did NOT have a "great deal" of design of, laying out of or building experience of golf courses. His PRIMARY function in all of them was as the money man and SOLE function in the MAJORITY of the ones you cite was again as the money man.

You need to admit that you are simply wrong in how much experience that you believe that CC Worthington had in course design. Of course now that you just stated that "because he had design experience and Tilly did not..." you need to go back to the other thread where this stupidity started when you made the statement that "by 1910 no one was hiring an inexperienced and untested person to design a golf course" because you just accepted that IT HAPPENED!

Now as far as "logic" dictating that Worthington "must have" been involved in designing Shawnee, AGAIN I say, PUT UP or SHUT UP! Show the PROOF that it happened! You demand that of EVERYONE ELSE but somehow conveniently forget to do so when confronted with YOUR statements of supposed "facts." You can't. You know it, I know it and most everyone on this site knows it so just admit that it is a SUPPOSITION that you are making and I have NO PROBLEM with it whatsoever; its a wrong one but I can at least understand your reasoning. Unfortunately you've stated quite clearly that he WAS the designer and Tilly's "ASSOCIATE" in doing so and because you stated that he had "far more experience" at it than Tilly then he must have been the LEAD DESIGNER. You even went so far in your "reasoning" on the Country Club Life article that you stated how Tilly never called himself the designer and only mentioned his constructing of the course. You NEGLECTED though to mention that Tilly NEVER mentioned Worthington by name and only referred to how the two of them walked the ice of the Binniekill together in 1909. NOTHING about WORTHINGTON AS DESIGNER!

By the way, for someone who likes to reason on things, did you ever think of asking yourself WHY Tilly was at Shawnee in the winter of 1909 a place where he normally wouldn't have been? Could it be because his friend said "Tilly, we need a golf course for my project and I want you here to DESIGN it?" Did you ever ask yourself WHY they would cross over to Shawnee Island at that time? Maybe because Worthington was showing Tilly the land he wanted to build the golf course on? Isn't that something that EVERY OWNER does with the architect who he wants to DESIGN THE COURSE?

Finally Tom, WHY DO YOU KEEP AVOIDING THE SUBJECT OF APOLOGIZING FOR CALLING ME A LIAR? You keep asking questions of me and yet you won't do what you should.

You have been wrong on this ENTIRE subject and throughout the discussion. You have made unfounded, unwarranted and slanderous accusations EVEN after I provided proof that I have the documents. Tom, your credibility is shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom and Phil,

Just a question about Worthington's design experience - okay, so he had something to do with two courses.  Do we know if any are any good or not?  Just because he designed two, do we know if he enjoyed it, was any good at it, had time for it?   Did he feel Tillie's connection to the Philly golf scene or playing ability, etc. make him better qualified?

It seems as if the decision would be made beyond a few simple numbers by other factors. IMHO

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

He wasn't any good at it, and more importantly, even if he wanted to pursue it when he retired and had the opportunity and money to do so, he DIDN'T. It is what he pursued during that time that Macwood doesn't know about that was just ONE of the things he was involved in that would PREVENT him from designing the golf course in any capacity and why he hired Tilly.

Worthington loved the game and loved playing it. He was NOT an early golf course architect wannabe...

Jeff, the real bottom line is that if Tom wants to proclaim Worthington as even a true design "ASSOCIATE" of Tilly's at Shawnee, which IS the exact title he gave him, he has to PUT UP or SHUT UP with it. He has posted not one single thing that even hints at it. Think about what he would have to say if I changed two words, if I substituted "Wilson" for Worthington and "Merion" for Shawnee. Even Tom Paul would say there was proof of nothing, yet Macwood argues against Wilson at Merion and demands PROOF"!

Its his turn to provide the PROOF! I have. Among the NUMEROUS proofs I provided Tilly's own words where he stated "I am the ARCHITECT of SHAWNEE."

No Jeff, this doesn't even approach the possibility of being debatable, especially where Tom has CONVENIENTLY stated that he "DOESN'T know who did what at Shawnee." That is what makes this entire topic a joke and an insult.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
In 1909 how many American amateur architects had more than three designs to their credit? Half a dozen, if that? Relatively speaking he was very experienced, certainly much more experienced than Tilly. Under the circumstances it makes more sense that he would lend a hand, than not lend a hand.

The reason Tilly was at Shawnee (with his friend) in the winter of 1909 was to lay out the new golf course. Are you under the impression I'm disputing Tilly was involved in the lay out of the course?

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!"

I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about here. What was Worthington doing between 1906 and 1911 the would have prevented him?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

I'm sorry, but you NEVER used the phrase "relatively speaking" in conjunction with Worthington's experience before this even though you had at least 5 opportunities to do so. All of a sudden this magic phrase is being used by you as if everyone should believe that you had been using it or implying it all along. Methinks you simply don't want to admit you're WRONG!

You stated, "Relatively speaking he was very experienced, certainly much more experienced than Tilly. Under the circumstances it makes more sense that he would lend a hand, than not lend a hand..."

Sorry Tom, but the problem is that you are completely UNAWARE of ALL the circumstances and so what makes "sense" to you simply isn't so. Instead of showing any humility toward me as one who has ALL of the facts, documents, etc... you continue to ignore what is being said to you.

On the other thread, when asked as to how you came to believe something as fact without supplying anything to back it up, you stated that you were able to do so because of your "many years of research" on the subject. Heaven forbid that someone else has researched this topic deeper than you!

"Are you under the impression I'm disputing Tilly was involved in the lay out of the course?"

NO I am not, yet you have relegated Tilly to a VERY MINOR ROLE in it ascribing the CHIEF role of designer to Worthington without providing any evidence or facts whatsoever and also stating on the other thread when challenged on it that Tilly was the "constructor of Shawnee" clearly implying that Tilly's role was mostly one of building.

No, Tom, you are playing fast and loose with your words. What YOU HAVEN'T DONE is PROVIDE ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOPUR CLAIM. NOTHING. NADA. BUPKISS. Despite being repeatedly challenged with the phrase PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

"I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about here. What was Worthington doing between 1906 and 1911 the would have prevented him?"

That is the point! YOU DON'T KNOW! Yet you stated how "Under the circumstances..." But how can you make that statement if you CLEARLY don't know what the CIRCUMSTANCES were? That is both hypocrisy and stupidity with a big bunch of over-blown ego added in.

What is now very clear is that you have no desire and never did to DISCUSS this topic. That you did so to simply "break my balls" as it were. Finally, and for the very last time, APOLOGIZE for SLANDERING ME as you did. I will not rerspond to anything else since you admittedly have nothing to add nor any desire to learn.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
When I make a statement about an historical figure I assumes the person reading it understands it is relative hsitocially to that period. Obviously you have difficulty judging these comments/observations from a historical perspective. I apologize for any confusion.

I understand the circumstances just fine. I also approach these subjects objectively which is clearly impossible for you. Not only is it impossible for you to analyze these things with an open mind your lack of historical background prevents you from fully comprehending what you see and read, which results in Alpinization being first develpoed in Richmond, Va. Yikes.

You are right, I don't know what would have prevented Worthington from assisting in the design, especially since he was on site at the time! The answer is nothing would have prevented him. Nice try though.

I don't recall calling you a liar, but if I did I'm sure I had good reason. When did I call you a liar?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

No need to keep insulting Phil, really.

But to answer your question, I get the impression that it was quite possible under the circumstances for Worthington to have some input, given whatever experience he had, his interest, etc.  It would be great to know if he had a Francis Moment, or even more.  Most owners do have some input and learning what it was would be fascinating.

That said, given most owners do have some input, the real question to answer is are you looking to find that out, or change long held design attribution credit, because you deep down believe much of it is flawed?  It may be, or it may be that your quest to dig deeper into who did what just doesn't fit everyone else's view of how that work would change attributions.

The arguments about attribution could go on forever without resolution.  More interesting information about what Worthington actually did, vs what you speculate he might have done, would be of value.

[Phil_the_Author]

For those who may care. I will not have anything to do with Tom Macwood for his constant slandering of me. As such I have just resigned from the site. I wish all well.

Phil

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()