[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I don't know but I would believe the actual entry was written into the minutes by the Club Secretary.   Given that it was a report of the Golf Committee with Robert Lesley as Chairman reading the Wilson Committee's report it was likely transcribed directly.

As far as what it means...

I believe it was simply an arcane way of saying that various potential routings were created and considered "on" the new golf course land they had secured the previous November.   I believe they were paper routings, almost certainly on topographical maps as indicated by the final recommended plan submitted with the report.

Especially when one considers the timeframe from November through April went right through Pennsylvania winter.  

David,

I don't feel like arguing with you today.   All I know is that you, Tom MacWood, and Patrick have all been invited to come and see for yourselves, and I know that because I'm on the distribution list for an email chain as you are.   

If you don't want to go, fine.   That's not my problem.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I don't feel like arguing with you today.   All I know is that you, Tom MacWood, and Patrick have all been invited to come and see for yourselves, and I know that because I'm on the distribution list for an email chain as you are.   

If you don't want to go, fine.   That's not my problem.

You don't know Merion's policies and you are wrong about Merion's policies.  I have no idea to what "invitation" you refer because I don't read that garbage, but I know I have not received anything from anyone who has authority to speak on behalf of Merion.
___________________________

As for the Minutes, TomM is correct.  There is obviously missing material from before and after.   And nice try with sticking your false time limits on the laying out many golf courses language.  That most likely happened the previous summer and fall, long before there is any evidence of your man Wilson even being involved.   
________________________________

I am still waiting for proof of the latest fantastic claims you guys came up with about how the course was redesigned before it was even opened.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm glad you've backed off your previous position and now simply use phrases like "most likely".   That's progress.

You (and Patrick) should also consider Walter Travis telling us in April 1907 (thanks Neil and Tom M) that they were still trying to figure out which holes to reproduce at NGLA, five months after they secured 200 undetermined acres.   I would think that should be the final word on that argument.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I don't know but I would believe the actual entry was written into the minutes by the Club Secretary.   Given that it was a report of the Golf Committee with Robert Lesley as Chairman reading the Wilson Committee's report it was likely transcribed directly.

As far as what it means...

I believe it was simply an arcane way of saying that various potential routings were created and considered "on" the new golf course land they had secured the previous November.   I believe they were paper routings, almost certainly on topographical maps as indicated by the final recommended plan submitted with the report.

Especially when one considers the timeframe from November through April went right through Pennsylvania winter.  

Mike
That entry is confusing and doesn't make much sense IMO, especially in the context of the second paragraph. One could lay out several courses on paper, but not several courses on the ground. One would lay out one course on the ground. And in the second paragraph they are rearranging the golf course, implying that that there was a routing decided upon - either staked out or on paper - but there is no indication of how they arrived at that one golf course. That is why it does not make much sense to me, how they went from several courses to one course is a mystery. They seemed to have skipped an important stage.

[DMoriarty]

Cirba,  I haven't backed off anything.  I can't be responsible for your inability to understand what I've written in the past. 

As for the Travis article, you must be reading a different article than I read the one I read.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Actually, it seems they went from many, to five different ones, to one.  

We know the five to one routings period happened between early March 1911 to April 1911 because the minutes tell us it was after they returned from NGLA.

What we don't know is the starting point of the "many", although one could reasonably assume that it happened after the Committee was formed in early 1911, because the minutes do tell us that it was the Committee who laid out many golf courses on the new land.

btw...An August 1908 article about the ongoing work at NGLA states that Travis was still involved at that point and was in constant communications with Horace Hutchinson.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Here's the August 15th, 1908 article from the New York Evening Post I mentioned.   It's a pretty good one and indicates the continued involvement of Walter Travis at that late date.   I thought I had found it, but Joe Bausch already had it.

Interestingly, it also mentions the "rank waste of underbrush, woods, and marsh land" which was the condition of the land prior to construction, consistent with CBM's mention of its dire condition and further belying the myth that he and Whigham laid out the course in a day or two on horseback.

It also mentions that they decided to provide safe avenues of play around hazards for the lesser golfers, which I would contend added significantly to their original estimates of acreage needed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I agree the wording is confusing and it contributes to our long standing debates.  Whether they just wrote stilted or figured everyone who would read it would know what they are talking about, we cannot know.  The only thing more garbled, stilted, and confusing is David's definition of laid out!

As to how they decided the final routing, I do suspect they didn't think to write it down because at some point, the five or six guys had to just sit in a room and decide.  We do have Francis description, which I suspect had to be a later version of the five, and presented to the committee after Lloyd signed off on the swap of "his/HDC" land.  As to the others, we don't know if they were close iterations of the same basic plan, or something truly different in a few cases.  

It would be nice to know.

[Mike Cirba]

There is a lot of great information all over this cropped image, but the underlined is primarily the evidence I'd point to that indicates that the routing had not yet been completed and ongoing discussion and planning was still taking place on exactly which "ideal" holes from abroad to emulate.   Travis does not say that they've selected all the holes yet, simply that there were plenty "from which to make selection", indicating future tense.   At this stage, in spring of 1907, they evidently still felt that each hole could be a replica, an idea which went by the wayside before too long.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

You guys sure seemed to think you understood "to lay out" when you tried to adopt that understanding in the Myopia discussions, and argued that articles saying that Campbell had "laid out" Myopia couldn't be read to indicate he planned the course.   

Anyway, if you are still confused about my understanding, look to Merion's Minutes, which explain how they were using the phrase by example:  Lesley tells us what Merion was trying to accomplish:  They would try to lay out the course "according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved." 

Why is this so hard to understand?  Merion went CBM at NGLA for help with the layout plan, then returned to Merion and tried to implement what CBM had instructed.  CBM and HJW returned to Merion to again go over the land and to sort out what Merion had tried, and to choose and approve the final routing plan, which was submitted to the board as the plan CBM and HJW had approved.  And Merion set out to lay out the course according to that plan.

Surely you understand that according to Merion, they already had a plan - the plan determined by CBM and HJW - before they finally "laid out" their course according to that plan.

I agree the wording is confusing and it contributes to our long standing debates.  Whether they just wrote stilted or figured everyone who would read it would know what they are talking about, we cannot know.

Then why don't you encourage your buddies to come clean with the rest of the minutes from this meeting, and the rest of the relevant meetings from the time period. 

As to how they decided the final routing, I do suspect they didn't think to write it down because at some point, the five or six guys had to just sit in a room and decide.  We do have Francis description, which I suspect had to be a later version of the five, and presented to the committee after Lloyd signed off on the swap of "his/HDC" land.  As to the others, we don't know if they were close iterations of the same basic plan, or something truly different in a few cases.

 

From where do you get this stuff?   Five or six guys didn't "sit in a room and decide."   Two guys decided.   CBM and HJW worked with Merion on the layout plan at NGLA, and then a few weeks later they returned to Merion to go again go over the land and sort out what Merion had tried, and to determine and approve the final routing plan.   How do you get "five or six guys sitting in a room" from this?    CBM and HJW had final say, even if it meant Merion would have to scurry to acquire the extra three acres.  This was very likely the same three acres near the clubhouse CBM advised them to acquire the previous summer. 

And Jeff, rather than rehashing all this again, let's try to move the discussion along.  Let's have your affirmative case. You've thrown out unsupported theory after unsupported theory, so now is the time for you to finally step up and contribute something of substance.  Cirba is obviously incapable of so doing, so we are relying on you.  Prove up your case.   Give us the facts supporting your wild theories.   

A good place to start would be above, with your theory that the course was redesigned immediately after it was built.  Where are your facts?  What was changed?   How do they jibe with the multiple accounts indicating that much of the course was based on the great holes abroad from the beginning?  Hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold me.   Prove your case. 

_________________________________________________

Bryan,

I am still hoping you will answer the specific questions I asked of you.  You haven't answered yet.  How would it change your interpretation of the Findlay article if only one other Alps hole had been "laid out" by CBM?

_______________________________________________

Mike's underline in the latest CBM article further demonstrate how bad he is at this stuff.  He can pretend any article supports his case, whether it does or not.  In this article, he ignores the part where Travis specifically identifies the five holes which will be "practically reproduced" and he ignore the repeated indications that little needed to be done to terrain to develop the rest, and he again confuses the details with the routing of the golf holes.  Travis made it clear in the sentence after Mike's underlined passage that at that this point they were developing what was already there, and earlier in the article Travis indicated that all that was needed was "a touch or two."   

All and all, though, the article does not specifically mention the routing.  But it does confirm that it would play along Peconic Bay and Bullshead Bay, and that the Sahara, Alps, Redan, Road, and Eden were already placed. Given that we already know that the shape of the land had already been determined and that the Cape was also in place and that the first and last holes were in place, it becomes quite obvious to anyone by Mike that the routing was well in place at this point.   Were they still working out the details?  Of course they were.  And no doubt they made some changes as they went along.  But the basic routing was in place and was apparently there there beginning.
_____________________________________________

One interesting aspect of the article is Travis' take on the state of golf in America.  Travis acknowledges (as he had elsewhere) that the very best courses in America were "merely colorable imitations of the real thing --good types of inland courses-- nothing more." 

Also, the article seems to confirm that, even long before it was opened, NGLA was considered a revolutionary course well beyond what existed in America.  According to Travis, NGLA "promises to be the very best in the whole kingdom of the golfing world.  And that is saying a great deal."

Also, notice that even at this early date there is no mention of Mike's silly real estate theory, where 90 of the 200 acres would be used for estates. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Listen, here is what Merion, Mike, and the rest offer - the Lesley report which says the committee laid out many plans, consulted with CBM and then laid out five more.  You subtly twisting non facts and parsed phrases to say that CBM laid it out while they were at NGLA is the wild theory, and if you can ignore the obvious and clear meaning of the one report that actually addresses who laid out the plans, then its hard to have a discussion.

If you dismiss it, you dismiss it.  No reason to keep going on arguing about your lies, suppositions, and other things.

That Lesley report just doesn't say that CBM laid it out at NGLA, or as you haven't backed off, far earlier than Nov 1910.

And frankly, as my Dad used to say, if you can't explain an idea in short order, its probably not a great idea.  In this case, a simple word usually has a simple definition.  Your definition of Laid out is tortuous.  And when you need to use sub-Article 6.5, sub-section 3.D.1 (a) to figure out if they were working on the ground rather than on paper, but that CBM was working on paper, I know my Dad would have been highly suspect, and I am, too.

Here's a phrase that most would understand correctly and doesn't require endless explanation - "load of crap."

But, I thought you were tiring of this endless discussion?  I wish you were.  Sometimes you sound reasonable enough, other times you run back out to left field to throw a ball in.

[Tom MacWood]

Regarding the actual planning of the course this is the way I read it:

Step 1: laid out many different courses on the new land
Step 2: re-arranged the course
Step 3: laid out five different plans
Step 4: CBM selects/approves one of the five plans

Step 2 and Step 3 could probably be combined, but I'm separating them in order to emphasize the fact that there was single golf course that they re-arranged, which is consistent with the Wilson letters to P&O.

There is no mention of how they went from many courses to one course, or who laid out laid out the many courses, or when it happened. Also it would appear the laying out courses is not the same as laying out plans. A very confusing excerpt without doubt, a couple of possible reasons for the confusion. 1, we are not getting the entire entry and are reading this out of context, or 2, the excerpt was not transcribed accurately. That is why I was hoping the original could be posted.

[Tom MacWood]

The other confusing aspect of the excerpt: in the first paragraph it states they went down to the National course and in the second paragraph it states on our return. I'm no grammar expert, but I believe they is third person and our is first person. That is another reason I believe something is amiss with the excerpt.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I agree we could combine 2 and 3.  And the entire original would be better than snippets, just in case there is some context that would explain things better.  That said, I don't believe that the transcription errors, if any, were intentional or changed the meaning, but you can believe what you want.

The course and then five different plans is a bit confusing, too.  The course could refer to the new course as contemplated, but not finally designed, or if you prefer, although not particularly logical, it could mean that there was one course laid out at NGLA and there were five different variations later.  Just out of curiosity, what letter to Oakley seems to confirm this notion?  As usual, so many documents are thrown out there, I cannot recall them all.

As to the grammar, Lesley starts out by saying that "Your committee desires to report that they......" and then by the second paragraph, morphs over to "upon our return."  I only take that to mean that he was there, and couldn't help himself in speaking that way, despite the formal introduction on behalf of the committee.  We also know Wilson was there at NGLA, so we know for an almost certain fact that Wilson and Lesley were there.

The report also says it was from the Golf committee, which is confusing.  From other documents, it appears to me the golf committee was a standing committee, and the construction committee operated under it, but then, I am not certain about that.

As to how they went from many to one, again, its just me, but after I route several versions of a course, I at some point just have to look at them and decide which has the most good features, sometimes with staff and even with the Owner.  I am not sure the intuitive decision making in choosing one plan over the other (or choosing one, but subbing out one or two features from the other, etc.) can be described.

I presume they did the same, with CBM and HJW looking over the shoulder to confirm this, that and the other thing. I happen to disagree with David that CBM had the final say - with no standing, contract, or whatever at Merion, he could offer advice, and I have no doubt that they were predisposed to follow it within reason, but CBM had no authority to make a final decision to buy 3 more acres, etc. 

But, I do agree with David (or more correctly, the Lesley report) that after they had drawn those five plans, that they accepted the decision of CBM as to which routing they had prepared was the best to implement.

[Tom MacWood]

From the first letter of February 1st (and in several others prior this April 14 excerpt) Wilson refers to the 'golf course.' Wilson also sends Piper a blueprint on February 1, asking him where they need to test the soil. Oakley responds saying he know how useful chemical analysis would be, but he thinks he will be able to give him good advice regarding what seed to use on for fairways and greens, how treat and fertilize that ground. On March 16 he sends soil samples to be tested and another blueprint marking the location the samples were taken. Over the next few weeks they discuss how they should fertilize the fair greens and putting greens. One would not send samples from locations not intended to be fairway and greens, so I think it is probable a routing existed prior to March 16, and most likely before February 1st, which is consistent with idea that there was golf course to be re-arranged when they returned from the NGLA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Thanks.

That said, we have had that discussion before.  My take is that if they had a routing, the soil samples would have been listed as "3Tee", "4Green" and the like, but they are lettered.  Also, there is probably not a inch on that tight site that wasn't going to be tee, green, or fair green.  And, I think we know that the greens were going to be ammended.

And that said, again, while the minutes seem to say they only discussed CBM's GBI plans and sketches, if they had routings by the March NGLA meeting, I wouldn't be surprised that they took them down there.  And not surprised if CBM told them they were total Horse crap, and that is when they started over, perhaps with a few holes that CBM saw as obvious being penciled in.

But, all that went on in those meeting is speculation, by me and others.  We all appear to have some different persepctives, based on our own experiences.  From mine, I don't place much stock in the real subtle nuances of phrasing, etc.  One course, our course, our site could easily be used interchangably, at least IMHO.

[Tom MacWood]

It was clear from the beginning of these correspondences that they would only treat the ground intended to be fairways and greens. Why would he send P&O a blank blueprint (without a golf course) and ask him where he should take the soil samples? It only makes sense if there was golf course on that map. Why would he send soil samples in March not know if those samples were taken from a location that would require treatment in the future. One of the reasons Oakley advised against getting the soil analyzed was because it was expensive and the info obtained was of limited use.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I haven't lied, so DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR, and quit behaving like a passive-aggressive jerk. I am not one of your buddies.

David,

Listen, here is what Merion, Mike, and the rest offer

What Merion has to offer??  So now you too are speaking for Merion? Did you join the club. If not, then perhaps you should stick to what YOU have to offer, which isn't much.  

- the Lesley report which says the committee laid out many plans, consulted with CBM and then laid out five more.  You subtly twisting non facts and parsed phrases to say that CBM laid it out while they were at NGLA is the wild theory, and if you can ignore the obvious and clear meaning of the one report that actually addresses who laid out the plans, then its hard to have a discussion.

I'm subtly twisting non-facts? You repeatedly assert that the Lesley report indicated they first "laid out many plans" when it did not.  No such thing is in the Lesley Report. The report said, they "laid out many courses on the new land. "  Nothing in that section about any plans or many plans or who who came up with the plans.  Just that they had laid out many courses on the new land. So quit subtly twisting non-facts.  

And you keep skipping the key part about how, UPON THEIR RETURN FROM NGLA, THEY REARRANGED THE COURSE. "The course" is singular.  Before seeking CBM's help as to the layout, they had laid out many different COURSES (plural) on the new land.  After returning from NGLA they REARRANGED THE COURSE.  Singular. They laid out five different plans on the rearranged course. Quit  subtly DROPPING key facts.

As for your accusation, what specifically did I twist?   You've admitted repeatedly that they were working on the layout plan at NGLA and multiple sources confirm it.  As much as you guys try, you cannot separate the NGLA meeting from the planning process
- They had laid out many courses on the new land.  
- They traveled to NGLA to meet with CBM for two days so CBM could instruct them how to lay out their course.  
- Upon their return, they REARRANGED THE COURSE and laid out five plans on the new land.
- A few weeks later, CBM and HJW returned to Merion and spent the day again going over Merion's ground.
- After looking over the various plans and going over the ground, CBM and HJW decided on and approved a plan which would produce a first class course and the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.  
- There is NO INDICATION whether this was one of the five plans laid out on the new land, or whether it was something CBM and HJW came up with independently, or a combination.  
- All we know for sure is that it was CBM and HJW who determined and approved the plan.  
-  The Golf Committee (of which Lesley was chair) presented this plan to the board, and the board resolved to acquire the necessary acreage, presumably on Lesley's indication that the plan had been approved by CBM and HJW, and that they thought it would be excellent provided Merion purchased the three acres.

If you dismiss it, you dismiss it.  No reason to keep going on arguing about your lies, suppositions, and other things.

You once went crying to Ran when you MISTAKENLY thought I had called you a liar when I hadn't.  Yet here you are FALSELY CALLING ME A LIAR.  I am not a liar, but you are behaving like a real jerk.    

That Lesley report just doesn't say that CBM laid it out at NGLA, or as you haven't backed off, far earlier than Nov 1910.

The Lesley report doesn't say that Wilson or anyone else at Merion "laid out" the course either. More importantly it does NOT SAY Wilson PLANNED the course, or that any of the five plans on the newly rearranged course made it to the final plan as decided upon by CBM.  As for CBM he didn't "lay out" Merion, but it sure looks like he planned it,
- Starting back in July of 1910 when he first went over the land and came up with holes he thought would fit provided Merion purchased a bit more land by the clubhouse.
- He continued continued with the planning at the two day NGLA meeting when he was trying to  teach representatives of Merion how to lay out their course.
- And he continued with the planning when he and HJW returned to Merion, spent the day again going over the land.
- And he finished with the plan when he and HJW, after having looked over the land and many different plans, decided upon and approved a plan which was submitted to the board, along with the request that the three acres be aquired.

We'll likely never know whether any of the five plans (or parts of them) as laid out on the newly rearranged course were actually used in the plan CBM decided upon and approved.  All we know is that CBM and HJW chose and approved the final plan, and that their plan - -the one they had chosen and approved -- that went to the board.  

And frankly, as my Dad used to say, if you can't explain an idea in short order, its probably not a great idea.  In this case, a simple word usually has a simple definition.  Your definition of Laid out is tortuous.  And when you need to use sub-Article 6.5, sub-section 3.D.1 (a) to figure out if they were working on the ground rather than on paper, but that CBM was working on paper, I know my Dad would have been highly suspect, and I am, too.

Blah Blah Blah.   You can't explain or support your theory in short or long order.   You have one sentence taken out of context.  I somehow doubt that is what your father had in mind for short order.

Here it is in short order:  CBM and HJW helped a bunch of novices choose their land, spent multiple days working with them on the layout plans, spent another day going over the land, and after having gone over the land and reviewing various plans, CBM and HJW came up with a final plan which may or may not have borrowed ideas from unidentified (because the board did not see fit to identify them) Members at Merion.  Merion wanted to build a course according to CBM's and HJW's plan, and their original course contained quite a few holes and features indicative of CBM's courses.

Or how about even in shorter order:   While they may or may not have been assisted unidentified Merion Members, CBM and HJW determined the final plan, and Merion attempted to build the course according to that plan.

_________________________________

TomM

I am not sure what you are summarizing, but if it is the Lesley report . . .

1. The supposed Lesley Report DOES NOT INDICATE that CBM and HJW chose one of the five plans as laid out on the rearranged course.  It is not even clear what, if anything, from those plans made it to CBM's final plan.  In fact, it is not entirely clear that CBM and HJW even came up with the final plan that day.  Here again is paragraph as it has been transcribed to us . . .

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional.

We know that, according to Lesley, CBM and HJW spent April 6th going over the ground, and maybe the next bit all happened the same day, but I am not so sure.  And the report certainly DID NOT INDICATE that CBM and HJW choose one of the five plans laid out on the rearranged course.   All it indicated was that CBM and HJW made their decision after having looked over "the various plans and the ground itself."

2.  I don't think you can leave out the NGLA trip from the planning process, as one only read the Alan and/or Hugh Wilson accounts to understand that the trip was crucial to the planning.  

3.  Same goes for CBM again spending the day going over the land.  

4.  Same goes for CBM determining the final routing plan after having studied the various plans and the land.

And of course there are numerous other aspects of the planning such as Barker's routing and CBM's and HJW's first recommendations that you don't list.  

Surely you left all this off on purpose so maybe you should just clarify what exactly you are listing.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

This isn't worth discussing.  You can believe what you want.  I don't agree.  Frankly, this debate isn't worth it at all.  What really matters is that Merion is a great course. 

Merion says in numerous documents that they laid it out themselves except for a bit of valuble help from CBM, and there is nothing in your essay that comes close to debunking that general concept.  And, everyone agrees to that point, but you keep insisting on making it more about CBM than it ever was, by making up definitions, dispersing triangles and the like.

Your essay never met any reasonable burden of proof, and we gave it more respect than it deserves.  So, David, go screw yourself, too.  But, enjoy yourself while doing it!  I mean, why not?

[DMoriarty]

Fancy how it is worth it for you to go on for years about my theories, but when challenged to start backing up your own theories, suddently "it isn't worth discussing." So you hurl some insults and false accusations, and run away. Same as Wayne and TEPaul.

As for your opinion of my essay, it carries about as much weight with me as Cirba's.  The funny thing is that you were pretty damn convinced by my essay when it first came out.  But that was before you buddied up with TEPaul and before you took such strong personal disliking to me, not that the two are unrelated.

Despite your revised opinion, my explanation is the only one ever vetted and the only one where actual facts have been offered to back it up and where all available facts addressed and challenges answered. So take shots at my IMO and me all you like.  We both know our understanding of the early history of the creation of the East Course has forever been turned on its head by my essay, whether the Fakers are ever man enough to acknowledge it or not.
___________________________

Whether done or not, you really ought to man up and make right your false accusation that I am lying. Either that or back it up.  I won't hold my breath.  Taking responsibility for your statements is not your strong suit, and neither is backing up your claims.  Doesn't fit into your "big picture" mentality, I guess.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

No one, not even the other two M's, really agrees with your theories.

TMac,

They spread manure over the entire property, including the rough.

[Mike Cirba]

They harrowed and turned over the entire property, and treated it with lime as well.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

They spread manure over the entiree property, including the rough.

Mike
Was the date of the letter where that is discussed or mentioned?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'll try to find it tomorrow...tied up this evening.

But think about it...most of the property was corn fields prior...they HAD to turn all of that over.

But there is also a letter where they talk about how much to spread in the roughs, on the greens, in the fairways.   I'll find it.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

David,

No one, not even the other two M's, really agrees with your theories.

1.  Earlier today Mike was speaking for Merion, now he is speaking for Patrick and TomM.   He has a bad habit of trying to speak for other people.  Given that his speculation is almost always incorrect, he is doing them no favors.

2.  My interest is in figuring out what happened, not in garnering agreement from the likes of Mike Cirba.  If these discussions prove anything it is that there is little correlation between the level of agreement and the soundness of my theories. There may be an inverse correlation, though. Cirba's disagreement has been a pretty good predictor of the soundness of my theories.  If Mike Cirba agrees with me, I better double check the soundness of my argument and support. 
____________________________________________________________

TomM,

I don't recall anything in the minutes indicating that they had prepared the entire parcel for seeding.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()