The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

That article from Dec. 1905 says it does........

[Joe Bausch]

From the June 2, 1907 edition of the NY Sun.

Is that a paved, gravel or dirt road?

Hey, I can see the ocean from that road!

Is that a windmill I see?

[DMoriarty]

I don't know how you can conclude that the Olmstead plan wasn't adopted. A quick overly shows that many if not most of the roads are still pretty much where they were located on that map.  Definitely many more roads have been added, but the plan provides a pretty good skeleton, especially given that it is 105 yrs old.   How many major highway projects have taken place between then and now?   We don't know changes to the highway which took place in the 34 years between 1873 and 1907 or the 104 years since, so I don't see the basis for stating what was changed and what wasn't.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Maybe Mr. Kavanaugh could weigh in on that pavement.

David,

I could be wrong, but I sure don't see any of the classic Olmstead curving roads in the way the plan developed.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The major highway through that area at least through 1914 was south of the Railroad tracks.  

Jeff,

My drawings were simply meant to try to approximate where some 250 acres that CBM may have been considering as he looked at "various sites" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills as was reported in November 1906, and possibly thought he had secured at some time around October 1906 when that article was posted.

If the southern boundaries of the land CBM said he secured skirted the LIRR, and the western boundary was between Shinnecock Hills train station and Good Ground, I have a hard time imagining that was the 450 aces available up at Sebonac Neck.

If it was Sebonac Neck, why didn't they just say that?   It's not like Sebonac Neck wasn't a known landmark.

But apparently, speculative discussion based on new findings = Charlatanism here.  

[DMoriarty]

I could be wrong, but I sure don't see any of the classic Olmstead curving roads in the way the plan developed.

Maybe I don't understand.   Are you saying that the 1907 map wasn't done by Olmstead, or that the roads on the 1907 map weren't built?  As to the latter, most of the roads on that map exist.  They have just been supplemented with a lot more roads.  
______________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba.  

Why must you distort everything?  
- You conveniently left off the part about the property STRETCHING ALONG PECONIC BAY.  
- And you misrepresented the "western boundary."  There is NOTHING about a "western boundary."    The article stated that THE FURTHEST POINT WEST was NEAR THE INLET.  
- The references to the stations were only to give the approximate location of the inlet, yet you keep pretending like they themselves were references.  
- And you left off the part about the land adjoining Shinnecock golf course!

You are a charlatan!

When you find yourself repeatedly changing the facts to suit your story, then even you ought to realize your story is for shit.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Your insults are really ranging on hysteria at this point.   You should take some yoga or something, seriously...you seem very angry for no good reason.

In any case, almost anything in that area skirts Peconic Bay, no?   




As far as what the article states, neither of us should change the wording..it's pretty self-explanatory.

[DMoriarty]

Not angry at all Mike.  But I am incredibly frustrated with having to deal with your unwillingness and/or inability to honestly deal with the source material.   I remember you in person as a nice guy and not entirely dimwitted, and so I am having trouble grasping how it is that you get everything wrong in about every post for years and years on end.  Perhaps I have overestimated your abilities.

Take your latest post, for example.

You again claim the property "skirted Peconic Bay" but that is NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID.  The article said that the property STRETCHED ALONG PECONIC BAY.    Surely you understand the difference?    The only property anywhere near Shinnecock's course that stretches along Peconic Bay is the Sebonack Neck Property!
 - How many times do I have to correct you on this one single mistake before you get it right?  
 - Why do you keep changing it back to "skirting Peconic Bay?"  

I see only two possibilities here, and both are far from flattering.  

[DMoriarty]

Here is another article mentioning the Golf Ground station, prior to its supposed opening date in 1907.   The article is from late October or early November 1906 NY Evening Telegram, and is discussing improvements being made necessary by the SHPBRC development.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

The major highway through that area at least through 1914 was south of the Railroad tracks.  

David, Mike is once again lying to you, veiling his response so as to preclude the existance of the other MAJOR highway that ran through the South Fork, the NORTH Highway, which would become the Sunrise Highway, in almost the identical location shown in the schematic.

Today, the Long Island Expressway is the MAJOR East-West Highway in Long Island, but, that doesn't mean that the Southern State Parkway and the Northern State Parkway aren't MAJOR East-West Highways.

Mike would have you believe that there were no roads except the one shown.
How did people get from the South Shore to the North Shore on the South Fork, when according to his schematic, there were no roads running North-South.

Mike is simply incapable of being objective and telling the truth, and worse, he makes up facts to support his agenda.

The NORTH Highway and the SOUTH Highway were the two main/major thoroughfares from the Canal to Points East in 1906.

[Phil_the_Author]

With all of this back and forth name-calling one thing is quite clear... not a single one of you three have any idea as to the condition and evolution of the roadways and how they impacted on both the community and the railroad in the East End of Long island in 1906-1910.

Let's go to the official "Documents of the Senate of the State of New York" "one Hundred and Thirtieth Session" "1907."

I don't think anyone of you can have a disagreement with this document.



The following is found on pages 231-233 and are the official DECISIONS as to the BUILDING and REBUILDING of the road(s) (e.g. - NORTH HIGHWAY) between the "Good Ground Station" and the "Shinnecock Hills Station."

You are about to see EXACTLY where the roads and train stations were located as of DECEMBER 4, 1906:

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

I'll check that out tomorrow, thanks.

Right now, I need to eat some newborn puppies for dinner and then hurl some molotov cocktails at the Vatican before getting some rest but I'll be back tomorrow with more acts of treachery and mayhem.

[Phil_the_Author]

I'm sorry Mike, but how can I trust the word of a "Liar?"

One other point about the North Highway going through the middle of that property as if that would deter anyone from building a  golf course there. Take a quick look through Ed Oden's thread showing early golf course designs and see how many courses were designed with holes parallel to, playing directly across and even with as many as 1/2 a dozen streets directly involved in the course and play during the time-frame that NGLA was designed and built.

Take a good look at the Garden City Golf Club during those years. Why GCGC? Because articles already posted on this thread clearly state that many of those involved with the creation of NGLA were GCGC members! They certainly had no problem playing shots that crossed active roadways... Take a look at Merion. For whatever CBM's involvement there crossing and playing over the road certainly didn't seem to keep him from believinmg that an outstanding course would be built.

I have no idea as to whether CBM looked where you believe that he did. I do know that the above document gives the EXACT location of the railroad stations, certain streets and where they crossed the tracks as well as the type of road that it was (dirt, etc...) What I am quite certain of is that crossing roads would not have bothered he or any of the other GCGC members in the design of the golf course...

In other words, if CBM looked where you believe, then the North Highway has absolutely nothing to do with why that land was not chosen...

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,  Thanks for the information which is somewhat duplicative of my post immediately above.  Frankly I'm not planning on wasting any time on the roads, because I don't see the roads as being all that crucial or relevant to any reasonable theory of what happened.   Mike Cirba's theory is not reasonable.   He just made up a third site because he'd like there to have been one. Wishful thinking does not a valid theory make.  

As for your last post, it is inapt.   Mike's fantasy land was over two miles long and would have had an average width of only 160 yards throughout, and it had a road running up much of it.  Plus, if the course ran in both directions and wasn't simply an "out" it would have had to have been well over 7,000 yards long.   I don't have to look at Ed Oden's thread to tell you that Mike's fantasy course was not CBM's ideal course.
______________________________________________


Mike Cirba,

No one said you were Evil.   Rather, you are unable and/or unwilling to accurately and/or honestly deal with the source material. I don't know which one it is and I much care anymore.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

Crossing a road is one thing, having a road run through the entire stretch of the very narrow phantom layout that Mike championed is another.

We know CBM crossed a road at NGLA with his 8th and 11th holes.
Likewise his Eden hole, # 13 and the Driveway on # 18.

But, that's a far cry from having one of the two MAJOR Highways of the time running down the entire length of the golf course.
Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course.

It's an absurd theory, one that a prudent person wouldn't consider unless they had a self serving agenda.

First Mike said that there was nothing there, then when it was pointed out that a Major Highway ran down the middle of his long narrow course, he denied its existance even though it was on the schematic he produced, the one he used as evidence to support his claim.   He continued to deny its existance, then, finally admitted it was there, but that CBM would move it, then he denied its existance by producing a schematic showing only one road on the entire South Fork.  And now, now it's clear that the North Highway was in full operation in 1906.

Mike changes his story daily, desperately clinging to any item in every newspaper account that Joe finds, in an effort to validate his phony theory.

Macdonald told us that he found the land adjoining Shinnecock Hills golf course.
Since he was a member there, I think it's reasonable to assume that he was familiar with where the Shinnecock Golf Course was, especially when he was playing it. (;

As a member of Shinnecock Hills, CBM was intimately familiar with how to get there.
He was familiar with the land East of the Canal, leading to Shinnecock, just like every member today.

As to my "liar" comment, I stand by it.

For Mike to produce a map, with just one road on it, the South (Montauk) highway, and offer it as proof, implying that the NORTH Highway didn't exist, is blatantly dishonest.  It's a LIE.  There's nothing he won't resort to in an attempt to justify his bogus theory, and lying, misrepresenting, omitting and twisting of the facts are just part of his SOP repertoire.

You and I may argue, passionately, even vehemently, about the play of the 3rd hole at Baltusrol, but, I think we both respect each others integrity, in that our positions are honest representations of the facts and our logic.

That's not the case with Mike.
He has shown, time and time again, that he's been disengenuous and dishonest.

I trust what you write, I view everything that Mike writes, with enlightened suspicion. 
I don't trust him to be candid, and I don't trust him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Everybody makes mistakes, but to deliberately post false or misleading information, to deliberately omit or misrepresent the facts is dishonest.

And, if somebody lies, directly or through inference and/or implication, I'm going to call it as I see it.

It might not be the most diplomatic or popular thing to say, but, if I remain silent, I'll hate myself.

Never forget what olde Billy Boy stated in Hamlet, Scene I, Act iii.  "This above all: ........ 

And now, to Quote George Burns, "Say Goodnight Gracie"

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I'm not intending to be part of this discussion. I posted what I did because all three of you, and that does include you, have shown that you simply do not understand what the roads were like in that time period. If there was any doubt, your comment "But, that's a far cry from having one of the two MAJOR Highways of the time running down the entire length of the golf course. Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..." proves my point.

First of all, the North Highway in that location at that time may have been "major" for those that lived there, but one thing is for sure, it wasn't a "MAJOR Highway" by any standard, especially in those days. It was but a small dirt road. One of the two main ones through the area yes, but small and really not all that busy. The reason for improving it wasn't heavy local traffic as the above citations from the NY State Senate records show, but to improve the crossings for safety reasons of the railroad tracks.

Secondly, I NEVER stated that I was commenting on the highlighted area that Mike showed, so why do you put those words in my mouth? "Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..." You call Mike "disingenuous" and a "liar" for doing the same thing to what you and David write, so yes, finish that Shakespeare quote aND THIS TIME CONCENTRATE ON THE next THREE WORDS, "To Thine Own Self..."

As for your stating that what I said about how roads were very often incorporated into golf course designs even at major clubs where shots would often cross them, go look at a map of GCGC from that time and count the number of times that not only holes but SHOTS would have to be played across active streets.

By the way, if you believe that North Highway at that spot in Shinnecock in 1906 was truly a "major highway" then the roads impacting on GCGC back trhen would qualify as interstate super-highways. That is why, in my opinion, YOUR theory as to what North Highway was is absurd and "one that a prudent person wouldn't consider unless they had a self serving agenda."

Take the road out of the equation and look carefully at what I posted and you'll see WHY that area would not have been acceptable for building a golf course there DURING THAT TIME! It's because the State of New York was going to rip up all the RR crossings and roads and rebuild everything. With that going on for the next few years it certainly wouldn't have been where CBM would want to build the "Ideal golf course."

Does this mean that he DIDN'T look in that area early on as Mike believe's? No it doesn't. That area in its entirety absolutely fits in among the bounds mentioned in the early newspaper articles. Did he look at the land and then learn of the State's plans? Quite possibly. Remember, it was also mentioned in those articles that the price for the land was suddenly increasing dramatically. It is no stretch of anyone's imagination to cite this specific highway and railroad improvements as the main reason for it.

Look at the area in the TIME FRAME in which the project happened and I think you will then view Mike's motivation's differently. You still won't agree with his conclusions, but I personally can't see him as being "disingenuous," a "charlatan" or a "Liar." All of those and the other things thrown at the man for simply looking at the information that he came across differently are most undeserved.

Anyway, this is why I, also, haven't been commenting of late. Discuss, disagree and insult is just not worth it...

By the way Pat, even though I am not quite as ancient as you I, too, grew up on Long Island and have memories even predating the building of a couple of small roadways such as the Long Island Expressway. Even though I wasn't in the social circles that would allow me to play NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC and any other private club, I did drive by all of them and have a pretty fair understanding of the areas in which each sit, something that both Mike and David do not. You, though, are familiar with the areas in question and should really re-think your views on them.

And you're still wrong about Baltusrol #3...

[Mike Cirba]

Pat/David,

So after all of that its a dirt road which I contended from the beginning?  The A"?+35 63+_@ 9lvord Co. Couldn't re-route a mile or so of it if they wanted?

Where do you guys think the "various " locations were around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock that CBM was considering?

For discussion purposes, let's assume David is correct and rthat Oct 1906 article with a western point near the inlet towards Good Ground was actually 250 acres near today's NGLA.

What does that do to our understanding of the NGLA creation story?

Recall the October articles say that property was surveyed, mapped, (would they need to be cleared and made passable first?), and that those maps had been sent to various overseas luminaries for review and comment and possible contribution.

We also know that it was another two months before CBM actually secured the property and we know at that time he was quoted as saying he and his committee would spend the next several months working up plans before construction would commence later that spring.

Is this consistent with what he wrote in his book 20 years later?

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

I love Patrick but he has a complete blind spot and closed mind when it comes to any information about CBM and NGLA that's more involved than a two day horseback ride and voila!, magic!

The irony is that Pat used to admonish all the Philly guys here to keep an open mind about Merion.

I guess its different when you have to confront your own biases and predispositions, but it is very obvious here that he hasn't followed his own advice, going so far as dismissing multiple contemporaneous news articles identically quoting CBM contemporaneously with events.

[Mike Cirba]

David/Patrick,

Do you think CBM would have paid to clear and survey a few hundred acres before securing the property, much less purchasing it outright?

Do you both actually believe that there is no way those articles weren't referring to land somewhere else...land that had previously been surveyed, likely for real estate purposes?

Which is the more likely scenario in your view?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm not intending to be part of this discussion. I posted what I did because all three of you, and that does include you, have shown that you simply do not understand what the roads were like in that time period.

I have a far better understanding than you give me credit for.
[/b]
If there was any doubt, your comment "But, that's a far cry from having one of the two MAJOR Highways of the time running down the entire length of the golf course. Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..." proves my point.

To the contrary, that statement is right on point.
The Olmsted Bros, who were nationally reknowned landscape architects labeled that road as a "HIGHWAY".
So did the New York State Senate, so I'm content that my categorization of that road, the NORTH HIGHWAY, was precisely accurate.
Perhaps it's you who don't know the difference between a "highway", a road and a lane.[/color

First of all, the North Highway in that location at that time may have been "major" for those that lived there, but one thing is for sure, it wasn't a "MAJOR Highway" by any standard, especially in those days.


Of course it was.  It was one of only two (2) major roads that traversed the South Fork in 1905 and today.
Olmsted called it a "HIGHWAY" and the New York State Senate categorized it as a HIGHWAY.
That's ample evidence for me.  If you want to join Mike in claiming it was a deer path, that okay with me, but, it undermines your understanding of what those roads were in comparison to all other roads of the time.[/b]

It was but a small dirt road. One of the two main ones through the area yes, but small and really not all that busy.


That's conjecture on your part.  And, it was certainly busier than all of the other "roads", it was a Highway, one of only two that traversed the South Fork from East-West.

If the NORTH HIGHWAY was a small dirt road, what were the other roads, deer paths ?
The Olmsted Bros and the New York State Senate knew the difference between a Highway, a road, a lane and a path, so stop the nonsense.  The NORTH HIGHWAY and the SOUTH HIGHWAY were THE MAJOR EAST-WEST THOROUGHFARES ON THE SOUTH FORK, THEN, AND NOW.[/b]
 
The reason for improving it wasn't heavy local traffic as the above citations from the NY State Senate records show, but to improve the crossings for safety reasons of the railroad tracks.

Correct, .......and why is that ?
Because the NORTH HIGHWAY had signficant traffic on it.
If it didn't, the crossing wouldn't represent a safety hazard.[/b]

Secondly, I NEVER stated that I was commenting on the highlighted area that Mike showed, so why do you put those words in my mouth?

Because that's the sole focus of the discussion on the North Highway.
No one cares about the path of the North Highway in Queens or Nassau County.
Mike posted a schematic produced by the Nationally famous firm of Olmsted Bros, and claimed the land was barren, when in fact, one of the two Major Highways running East-West on the South Fork went right down the center the very narrow area he designated as the site of CBM's golf course.  Since CBM was a member of Shinnecock pre-dating NGLA, he was keenly aware of that road and the property it bisected.

The North Highway, and discussions about it, have no relevance West of the Canal or East of Shinnecock Hills.
The entire context of the discussion pertaining to the North Highway was in the area Mike claimed was the narrow barren site East of the Canal that he claims was CBM's site for NGLA.[/b]

"Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..."


That's correct, or didn't you see the site Mike outlined in Blue.
Do you even know what you're talking about.
Look at the area Mike outlined in Blue, his CBM site and then look at the Olmsted schematic Mike posted.
Mike's theory was that they were almost congruent.
Haven't you been paying attention.
And, in that schematic, the NORTH HIGHWAY ran right down the middle of Mike's site.
Mike's area, outlined in Blue in a long, very narrow area.
What Mike didn't realize, and I guess you don't either, is that there's a MAJOR HIGHWAY running right down the center of it.
A Highway that CBM was intimately familiar with. [/b]

You call Mike "disingenuous" and a "liar" for doing the same thing to what you and David write,

ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Show me where I lied.
Show me where I deliberately misrepresented.
Show me where I omitted relevant facts

Absent your ability to produce any of the above, a retraction and appology will be accepted.[/b]

so yes, finish that Shakespeare quote aND THIS TIME CONCENTRATE ON THE next THREE WORDS, "To Thine Own Self..."

I always have been, on this thread and on the 3rd hole at Baltusrol.[/b]

As for your stating that what I said about how roads were very often incorporated into golf course designs even at major clubs where shots would often cross them, go look at a map of GCGC from that time and count the number of times that not only holes but SHOTS would have to be played across active streets.

I'm intimately familiar with GCGC and the roads (active and inactive [planned]) that cut through the property.
But, GCGC was a vastly different site than NGLA.  Garden city was a vastly different area than the remote area West of the Canal on the South Fork.   With NGLA, CBM had a "pick of the litter" opportunity regarding the land for his golf course.  No such luxury was afforded at GCGC.[/b]

By the way, if you believe that North Highway at that spot in Shinnecock in 1906 was truly a "major highway" then the roads impacting on GCGC back trhen would qualify as interstate super-highways.

Like Mike, you've now taken to incorporating hyperbole in your posts.
Many of the roads at GCGC were planned, on schematics, but NEVER built.
Olmsted defined the road as a HIGHWAY.  The New York Senate Defined the road as a HIGHWAY,
But, you along with Mike would have us believe that it was just a deer path.
Did you ever stop to consider why they built the Shinneock Inn right on/off that HIGHWAY ?
Or, was it constructed to help lost hikers in the middle of the brush/woods ?[/color

That is why, in my opinion, YOUR theory as to what North Highway was is absurd and "one that a prudent person wouldn't consider unless they had a self serving agenda."

But, it's NOT MY OPINION.
It's the OPINION OF THE OLMSTED BROS FIRM AND THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE.
That's what's so absurd about your post.
You're denying the very source your citing as the authority on this issue.[/b]

Take the road out of the equation and look carefully at what I posted and you'll see WHY that area would not have been acceptable for building a golf course there DURING THAT TIME! It's because the State of New York was going to rip up all the RR crossings and roads and rebuild everything.

If you take the road out of the equation, then, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO RIP UP THE RAILROAD CROSSINGS.  THE ROAD IS AT THE CORE OF THE ISSUE.  THE ROAD WAS IN SUCH USE, WITH TRAFFIC, THAT THE CROSSINGS BECAME DANGEROUS, thus the crossings would be moved and restructured.  TELL ME THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.[/b]

With that going on for the next few years it certainly wouldn't have been where CBM would want to build the "Ideal golf course."
You don't get it.
The road, THE NORTH HIGHWAY had become so heavily traveled that when it crossed the RR tracks, the increased traffic, road and rail, constituted a safety hazard.  IT'S THE HIGHWAY and TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY THAT'S THE ISSUE.
It's the SAME HIGHWAY THAT CUT RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER OF MIKE'S LONG, NARROW GOLF COURSE.[/b]

Does this mean that he DIDN'T look in that area early on as Mike believe's? No it doesn't.

Of course he looked at that land.
He looked at it EVERY TIME HE DROVE DOWN THAT HIGHWAY WHEN HEADING TO SHINNECOCK, WHERE HE WAS A MEMBER.
AND, HE LOOKED AT IT AGAIN, WHEN HE DROVE BACK TO NEW YORK CITY.[/b]

That area in its entirety absolutely fits in among the bounds mentioned in the early newspaper articles.

The same newspaper articles that have been wrong, time after time, on issue after issue ?
Remember, Mike initially claimed that the course was WEST of the Canal at "Good Grounds"  Then he conveniently, and for his agenda, extended "Good Grounds" to EAST of the Canal, but, on the map he most recently posted, we see that "Good Grounds" is entirely WEST of the Canal[/b]

Did he look at the land and then learn of the State's plans? Quite possibly.

Highly doubtful.
And, he NEVER mentions or alludes to any such activity or consideration.
But, if you want to make up things, I can see why you'd align yourself with Mike.(;[/b]

Remember, it was also mentioned in those articles that the price for the land was suddenly increasing dramatically. It is no stretch of anyone's imagination to cite this specific highway and railroad improvements as the main reason for it.

That's speculation on your part.
Correction, that's wild speculation on your part.

Why do you improve a highway ?
Perhaps because the traffic on it is increasing
And, if the price of the land was increasing due to development, why would CBM want the NORTH HIGHWAY, a HIGHWAY that was getting busier, to run right smack down the center of a very narrow strip of land that Mike claims was the site he wanted ?[/b]

Look at the area in the TIME FRAME in which the project happened and I think you will then view Mike's motivation's differently.


Phil, you must be kidding.  My entire perspective is circa 1905.  And, the TIME FRAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MIKE'S MOTIVATION.   He's agenda driven.  His entire goal is to discount, diminish and dismiss the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order.  That you don't see that is mind boggling to me.  But then again, you think the way to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol is with a fade, so your defense of Mike shouldn't surprise me.[/b]

You still won't agree with his conclusions, but I personally can't see him as being "disingenuous," a "charlatan" or a "Liar."


I NEVER called him a "Charlatan"[/b]

All of those and the other things thrown at the man for simply looking at the information that he came across differently are most undeserved.

Not true.
Mike has an agenda, that you don't see it surprises me.  And, in the pursuit of that agenda, he's been disengenuous and lied.

Now, I like Mike.  I've had him as my guest at GCGC.  He's welcome to play Hidden Creek or where ever I might be a member.
But, on this thread he's had an agenda from the start.  To discount, diminish and dismiss the possibility that CBM could have routed Merion in short order.  And as such, I don't think he's conducted himself on a high, objective, intellectually honest basis.
We may disagree on that, but, that's my stated opinion.[/b]

Anyway, this is why I, also, haven't been commenting of late. Discuss, disagree and insult is just not worth it...


I agree, discuss and disagree.  But, when people MAKE UP FACTS, are disengenuous and lie, directly, infered and/or implied, then it's no longer an honest discussion, it's an agenda driven discussion.[/b]

By the way Pat, even though I am not quite as ancient as you I, too, grew up on Long Island and have memories even predating the building of a couple of small roadways such as the Long Island Expressway. Even though I wasn't in the social circles that would allow me to play NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC and any other private club, I did drive by all of them and have a pretty fair understanding of the areas in which each sit, something that both Mike and David do not. You, though, are familiar with the areas in question and should really re-think your views on them.

I would agree that David and Mike are NOT familiar with those areas, which is why they should exercise more caution BEFORE making ABSOLUTE declarations.

Mike, in his haste to prove his agenda never bothered to examine the Olmsted Bros schematic showing the North Highway, then, when his omission became glaringly evident, he declared that the highway didn't exist, even though he was the one who posted the Olmsted Bros schematic showing the Highway, as evidence to prove his point.  His positions have conveniently changed time and time again, but, they've changed in but one direction, the direction of furthering his agenda that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order as he wrote in "Scotland's Gift".  And why, so that he could prove that CBM didn't route Merion in short order.

I'm astounded that a guy as bright as you, hasn't connected the dots.

But, then again, I remember, you think the 3rd hole at Baltusrol should be played with a fade.(;

Why don't we let the third party in attendance at our "demonstration on the 3rd hole" make the deciding vote ?  
[/b]
And you're still wrong about Baltusrol #3...


See my comment above (;[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

Didn't Mike tell us that there were NO TREES on the property or at that area on the South Fork ?

If he's correct. what would there be to clear ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

CBM told us in his book that the land he selected was impassible on foot and was wildly overgrown, which is why they needed to travel on horseback.

I'm not sure that is a situation where one could accurately survey hundreds of acres.

Don't do the same things you are accusing me of...I know you are well aware of what an entangled mess CBM told us that site was.  Let's try to have a productive discussion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Apparently some aren't aware of how much easier it is to clear brush than it is to clear trees, which were often dynamited in order to clear the roots at the base of the trees.  Teams of Mules and/or horses were also used to pull up the roots of trees and to remove the roots and trees or locate them at burning sites.  Anyone who's ever cleared trees knows how difficult a task that can be.
Cleaning underbrush in the fall used to be very easy when burning didn't require permits.

Clearing underbrush, including Bayberry, Huckleberry and blackberry is an easy task.
Anyone who's ever harvested blackberrys, rasperrys and the like knows that it's a simple task.
I used to clean the blackberries and rasperries then pour a little milk and sugar over them.
They were quite tastey.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Is Patrick now accusing CBM of starting a 450 acre fire on land he had neither secured nor purchased? 

[Mike Cirba]

Can anyone with knowledge of 1906 surveying technology and techniques weigh in on how one might complete a survey plan and maps for a 450 acre plot that was described by CBM as an impaasible (on foot) jungle of brambles, bogs, and bushes, presumably with many of those head high or over?

In other words, would you need to clear the underbrush first?

Thanks,