[Andy Hughes]

Thanks Mike. I am not saying the course was completely routed as you define it, but that the outlines of the desired property had to be pretty well defined at that point because of the Inn, the 'skirting of Bullshead Bay', the Redan/Alps and the Cape hole.  

Do you believe the 200 acres mentioned in the Founders letter (he wrote 200 acres, not 205 acres, though his math adds up to 205 acres) may just have been a coincidence? After all, he did previously try to purchase 120 acres.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff, and in October it was reported that he was actually buying 250 acres. 

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

In June 1906 after his return from Europe he again said he was looking for around 200 acres.

It was consistent throughout from 1904 on, and he intended to build lots.  

The only deviation was his offer for 120 acres near the canal, but that was in an area already being subdivided with building lots, so he may not have needed his own.   It also shows what he thought he'd need for his golf course.

David,

I'll try to read your stuff and answer later...thanks.

btw...I think the "250 acres" was a transposition.

[DMoriarty]

Andy,

In June 1906 after his return from Europe he again said he was looking for around 200 acres.

It was consistent throughout, and he intended to build lots.  

David,

I'll try to read your stuff and answer later...thanks.

Nonsense.  This has been Mike's dead horse for years now, and it looks like he is getting ready to circle back to the carcass yet again.  Those December 1906 articles described the land on which the course would be located, and there is no place for 90 acres of lots!  The described swath of land wasn't anywhere near wide enough for both a golf course and lots.  Mike pretends that this could be resolved by making the holes narrower, but look at the map.  

For example, the location of the Alps was contemplated from the very beginning,  as was the use of a mile of Bullshead Bay for a mile.  But the Alps feature defines the widest point of the property.   Was CBM planning on physically moving the Alps feature closer to Bullshead Bay to make room for a strip of 1-1.5 acre estates?   Or was CBM planning on pushing the course to the outside and building these lots right up the middle of the course, just like he had the north highway running up the middle of his last fantasy course?  

It's origin 90 acres of lots red herring comes from a hypothetical scenario in the 1904 letter.  Unfortunately, the reason it is "consistent throughout" is that many of the newspapers were still repeating substantial portions of the 1904 letter years later.  But Mike seems to think that every time this stuff gets repeated, that CBM said it anew.   Some of the articles on which Mike is relying reprint the old letter almost verbatim, yet Mike treats it as if it is fresh material.  

____________________________________________

And of course Mike thinks the 250 acre figure in the October articles was a transposition.  But how the hell would he know that?   Interesting research approach; if you don't want to deal with it, just assume it is a mistake! 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Whigham wrote in 1906 that the plan included founders building lots, as you know.

CBM said on his return in 1906 that he was looking for 200 acres.

He also planned on 50-55 yard wide avg fairways.

He also didn't reealize how much of his purchase was truly worthless.

The building plan got scraPped.

Read the articlees and argue with them, not me.

[JESII]

Wasn't the Founders plan a concept? An Ideal?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Cb could have located his boundary adjacent to alps hill anywhere he wanted within the 450 acres, including up on today's Sebonack GC.

As regards the article from Oct you posted, I believe it was you who said it contained all sorts of errors and misconceptions.

You KNOW CBM wanted 200 or so acres from the beginning for his plan, and you know what that plan consistently entailed.

Are you trying to win a personalized debate with me or actually trying to figure out what really happened?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

You're kidding, yes?

Cbm asks pledges of money from the sixty or so wealthiest golf men in the country, telling them he's buying 200 or so acres of which 110 would be used for golf, 5 for clubhouse, and the rest for 1.5 acre building lots for each of them that were sure to greatly appreciate in value and he was just kidding?!?!

[JESII]

Sorry Mike, I was talking about the 1904 version.

And by "concept/ideal" I didn't mean joke. I meant ideal/blueprint.

[DMoriarty]

Mike changes his mind so much that it is impossible to address his posts in one single entry.      

A few posts above he added that the 120 acre offer was some sort of an exception:

The only deviation was his offer for 120 acres near the canal, but that was in an area already being subdivided with building lots, so he may not have needed his own.   It also shows what he thought he'd need for his golf course.

The only deviation?   It was the only other offer!    All the rest was just repeats from newspaper columns!    Actions speak louder than words.  And there was CBM in action, buying land based on his needs for the golf course, not for some estate distribution system.

Mike, would you please list for us all of the many offers that CBM made for parcels of land which were large enough for a 90 acres of real estate?  If the offer for 120 acres was a "deviation" then there must be a bunch more.    

And Mike disingenuously claims that the reason they didn't try to buy more was because the area had already been subdivided with building lots.   MIKE IS JUST MAKING STUFF UP.    CBM supposedly made his offer for the 120 acre parcel within a few weeks of the time the developer obtained the property.  Does he think it was developed during those few weeks?

And the same developer owned both parcels, so the same argument ought to apply as well to the property on Sebonack Neck!   Yet Mike artificially insists that on one side of the property CBM only wanted enough for the course yet on the other side he is planning on giving out 60 lots?  

- Mike, would you please explain your justification for stating that the land had already been developed by the Canal?  
- And why wouldn't the same  argument about the founders buying off property apply on the Neck?  
- And isn't more likely that in both cases CBM was just buying for the course, and that because of the nature of the sites  CBM just needed a lot more land for the golf course on the Neck?

This is what Mike does.  He just squirms and slithers and hopes no one notices that most of the stuff he is writing makes no sense.  If he gets caught he slithers away but then circles back later and makes the same claims again.

______________________________________________

As for your next post(s) you are again misrepresenting some of the information and cherry picking other information.  The Founder's agreement doesn't say that was going to buy 205 acres, it gives a hypothetical of what might happen if they bought 200 acres.  It was only a "suggestion."   And I don't see where CBM said he needed two hundred acres upon his return.    An article wrote that he would need 200 acres, but it isn't in the CBM quote.  You are picking and choosing as you see fit.   Besides, the acreage was at least in part a function of the cost and the amount of money it would take to develop the golf course.

Giving excess land back to the founders was mentioned as a possibility in the Founders Agreement, and it is mentioned as an "ingenious" financial mechanism in an article that seems aimed a drumming up interest, but for you to continue to claim buying an extra 90 acres of land to then hand it back to the founders is too much.   The main point you seem to be missing is that he was looking for a perfect site for a golf course.  If it had a place for estates, fine, but the goal was to find land for a course.  

Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words are from an old letter and one marketing blurb.  And when it came time for action, CBM attempted to buy a 120 acre parcel.  Unless you think he was going to design a 30 acre golf course, then your theory about his priorities is shot pieces.

Next he bought 205 acres in a long oddly shaped strip with no place for a golf course. He could have scrunched a golf course into half of it I suppose, but he was out to build an ideal golf course and so he bought land on which that course would fit with NO CONSIDERATION FOR 90 ACRES OF LOTS.

If YOU don't agree then why don't YOU take it up with Macdonald.   As you keeps pointing out he was quoted extensively in those articles about the project.  He described the long, thin, irregularly shaped swath land, described many of the locations for golf holes, described the proximity to the hotel,  the starting point of the course, the water frontage, etc.  He even described the yacht accessibility for goodness sakes!   NO MENTION THAT HE WAS PLANNING ON USING ALMOST HALF THE LAND FOR ESTATES.  NO MENTION OF USING ANY OF THE LAND FOR  ESTATES WHATSOEVER.

Do you know why there was no mention of the 90 acre set-Aside for the estates?  Because he only bought enough land for his golf course, and he wasn't planning on having 60 estates crammed onto the same thin strip of property!

He did write the members could expect in two years, though, when the course was finished:  

It will take two years to perfect the course.  Then our members will find a golf house ready, also lockers and baths.  We are not going into the bed and hash business.  A modern inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests.  There are sites available for houses, and yachts may approach through Peconic Bay.

Did you get that.  He wasn't going into the bed and hash business. He was building a golf course.  No mention of them finding their 1.5 acre estates ready to be developed.  If  they wanted a place to sleep there was an inn nearby and plenty of sites for houses.  

And there were plenty of sites for houses, given that SHPBRC was to developing hundreds of acres for real estate right next to the course, and they had another 250 acres as well.  But why would he mention that "there were plenty of sites for houses," if all of his founders were going to be building their palatial estates on narrow swath CBM had just described as a golf course?

Let me guess?  You will try to claim that CBM is referring to "plenty of sites for houses" on the NGLA property itself?   Would you really?   Probably.   Even though he had just described the property as a golf course?   And even though you don't even think he has bothered to yet consider where the golf course will go, much less the "plenty of room for the houses?"   I wouldn't be surprised, but you know as well as I do that this is not what was referring to.  

__________________________

Jeez Mike, I cannot keep up with your fibs and absurd claims.

You are misrepresenting what I said about those October articles.  Knock it off.

CBM couldn't have gone anywhere on Sebonack Neck with the property because he had already chosen the land from the Inn to Peconic Bay with a mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay.   DO THE MATH.  That greatly limits where he can go and how wide his course could be!   

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

That letter was still valid in 1905 and 1906 and in 06 Whigham was still talking bout acre sized founders lots and CB was still seeking 200 acres, so no, I don't think it was ideal.


Behr's article also mentions what was needed for a golf course (around 110 acres), CB said Merion could prob do on 12120,and CB offered for 120 where he thought he had built in real estate, so no, it was practical and not idealiatic.

[Mike Cirba]

David,  whixh parts of the oct articles do you believe are in error?

As regards width, we all think CB HAD to go to Peconic Bay but that's an assumption on our parts.  Truly not much of tthe course even adjoins today so I don't know that it was mandatory.

He also could have shortened/straightened his route by usong avail land of today's Shinnecock course, so he definitely had options.

Do you think CB had located 18 tees and greens by the time he secured the property in Dec 06?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  

Mike's attempt to convert this acreage-for-housing scheme into some sort of binding contractual term is entirely bogus.    It wasn't a term, and it wasn't even a blueprint, concept, or goal.  It was a "suggestion."  CBM wrote "This is simply a suggestion" and left it to be worked out later.     Had CBM known that someone like Mike would be twisting it for his own purposes 100 years later, he might have left it out all together.  

In fact the entire thing is from a hypothetical.   It starts "Assuming that we buy 200 acres . . ."  It is a hypothetical suggesting what could happen if there was extra land.  

While they always contemplated the possibility that there would be excess land and the founders might benefit, CBM was quite clear that this was not at all the purpose of the project, and joining was not an investment:

While the $1,000 subscription it is trusted will be made in a spirit of advancing the sport in this country, and not as an investment, at the same time it is proposed to give something for the $1,000.

He also makes clear that the purpose of the endeavor is to find the land best suited for golf which was also accessible.  He is originally looking for 200 or more acres, but that seems to somewhat a factor of cost, and how much was necessary to build the course.   Any left over land could be given back to the founders, or something else could be worked out later.  

[Mike Cirba]

Dsavid,

Just read your longer post about sites.

Phew...that's a humdinger! 

I don't even know where to start.

Wasn't it Behr who rightly said that an out and back routing was the most efficient in terms of space utilization?

What was he going to do on the other 120 acre site...build a mini golf course?

Please also show us the land plan for where the developer wsas going to build houses next to NGLA.

Wow

[Mike Cirba]

David,

You know that isn't what CB wrote as a suggestion in that letter.

Instead of parsing and omitting and twisting, why not just repost the letter in its entirety and let people make up their own minds what it says.

We don't really need you to interpret.  Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Do you think they had located eighteen tees and greens by Dec 1906?

What parts of the Oct 06 articles do you believe to be in error and why?

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

David,  whixh parts of the oct articles do you believe are in error?

You just claimed that I wrote that the article contains "all sorts of errors and misconceptions" and now you have the nerve to ask me to recite that for you?

You've got some nerve.  You cannot just make shit up and wrongfully attribute it to me and then expect me to set the record straight.  That is dishonest.  And sleazy.   But that is what you do, again and again.    

I am tired of having to suffer and scramble because you just make shit up and because you are unwilling and/or unable to follow the argument.    I explained my thoughts on these articles well back.  Look it up. And next time look it up before you start indiscriminately misrepresenting my position.

As regards width, we all think CB HAD to go to Peconic Bay but that's an assumption on our parts.  Truly not much of tthe course even adjoins today so I don't know that it was mandatory.

He also could have shortened/straightened his route by usong avail land of today's Shinnecock course, so he definitely had options.

I don't give a damn what he "could have" done.  I care what he did.   And he described the land he optioned and it is as the land is now.    

You keep pretending that the property was an open book at this point, but it wasn't.    He described the land.  It was the same as it is now.   So all this speculation on your part about how he could have fit housing is malarky.   He already had chosen the land.   A two miles strip starting near the inn.   A mile on Bullshead.  Etc.  

Do you think CB had located 18 tees and greens by the time he secured the property in Dec 06?

I am not answering any of your questions until you start answering mine, current and past.    

Here are a few simple ones.

If in mid-December 1906 CBM was still planning on eventually distributing 90 acres for lots after the course was routed, then why didn't he mention it when describing the project?  And why then why did he announce that there were already sites for houses in the area?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A question for the architects.  Have you ever ridden over new land you had never seen before, that was heavily covered with bushes and undergrowth, that consisted of 450 or so acres, and routed a course there -- all in two or three days?

A question for anyone:  in Scotland's Gift, CBM first says he did not want to get too close to Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.  A few paragraphs later, he says he found land adjoining Shinnecock Hills Golf Course that would work well for the course.  This is the land he ended up buying and building NGLA on.  Did he change his mind about being close to Shinnie, or is he talking about two different things?   


Jim,

I think CBM had a love/hate relationship with SHGC.

I believe he was a member, then not a member due to a clubhouse incident.

I don't know the date of that incident offhand, but, it would certainly motivate him to "remove" himself from being under SHGC's eyes.

I can't imagine him siting his clubhouse behind the current 9th green for a number of reasons.
1     They didn't own that land
2     I can't imagine him feeling looked down upon from SHGC's clubhouse perched high above him.
3     The site between # 1 and # 18 overlooking Peconic Bay is better than spectacular,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat/Jim,

In 906 those Shinny holes adjacent to NGLA were not there, were not owned by Shinny, and were part of the 450 acre parcel that CBM was considering for purchase.

Mike,

NO ONE ever referenced holes at SHGC, so I don't know why you'd bring them up other than to create another diversion.

As to the land, I'm not so sure you're correct about that.
CBM himself states that the land he wanted ADJOINED SHGC.

That sounds like it bordered SHGC's property to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Was the Shinnecock Inn built where it was built because CBM wanted it there and that was the agreement?

Not to my knowledge.
[/b]

Or was it built there because of the railroad, and CBM had to make do with that spot? Or something else?

I believe the SI was originally, slightly SE of the site behind his 1st tee.
The site behind the first tee was right on the North Highway, the main East-West thoroughfare on the North side of the South Fork.[/b]

Pat, did CBM actually have 18 specific holes he wanted to build regardless of the site?

Yes, he did.
The list appears on page 184 of "Scotland's Gift"

The concept of the ideal/classic 18 holes had its origins with a contest started in 1901 in the London "Golf Illustrated", in an article entitled, "Best Hole Discussion" wherein they asked the top golfers of the day to list the most testing holes in the UK.

From there, CBM began his own pursuit[/b]

Or did he have a smaller collection of holes he wanted to build (i.e. templates such as the Redan) and some other more general concepts he wished to incorporate into holes?

No, he listed his collection of all 18 holes and provided a brief summary of each one, including the course of origin.
[/b]

Was the Cape hole actually an original or a copy of a hole like the 1st at Machrihanish?  

I'm not sure whether the concept came from a par 4 or a par 5 like the 16th at Littlestone, or a combination of holes[/b]

If it was an original, did he already have the concept thought out or did he see the pond up in the corner and have a Eureka! moment?

He apparently found his Eden quickly.
When you stand behind the Eden, but with only a northern direction to follow along Bulls Head Bay, the Cape concept seems to unfold in front of you, naturally.  He states the sequential nature of the routing.  After he explains locating and formulating his Eden, he states, "Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."  So, I think that in finding one setting for one of his template holes, the Eden, by default, he found the next, the Cape.  A Eureka moment as you declared.[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

If they only way they could get over the ground was on ponies, doesn't it beg a lot of questions about how they could survey or route the course?

Do you see the direct quotes above and their timing specific to the "agreement" to secure the land on undetermined borders?

Mike,

You told us in a previous post that there were no trees on the property.

Absent trees, and with just low lying berry bushes, they could see every contour.

You continue to misrepresent, now telling us that the reeds were over their head, obstructing their vision.

You're being disingenuous, and I don't care what Jeff Brauer thinks about the use of the word, your actions fit the definition perfectly.

Jeff Brauer,

Mike stated the following:

A few reasons, but mostly because CBM had 450 inpenetrable acres to traverse.


You know and I know and Mike knows, that that statement is a blatant lie.
Now do you want to discuss the definition of disengenuous ?

Or, how about this quote:

You've seen plant growth near swampy areas...some of the reeds go up way over your head.

Mike is now posturing that the visibility was so impaired by the reeds that you couldn't see anything on foot
The truth is, they could see everything on foot.
The reason for the ponies was to get through the berry bushes with little or no effor on their part.
They were't riding around on step ladders or cherry pickers, the ponies were to minimalize the effort, not enhance the view.

Mike is being disingenuous...... again.
But, if you want to defend him, go ahead, be my guest.
I know when someone is being honest, and he ain't it

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Cb could have located his boundary adjacent to alps hill anywhere he wanted within the 450 acres, including up on today's Sebonack GC.

No he couldn't.
After his Alps, he had to reverse course, heading North East, and from there, he had to head south on his next hole.
With the 18th hole established, with the green finishing at the SI, the die was cast, especially with the introduction of two of his famous template holes, which he claimed to have routed first, the Road and the Bottle, thus, from the 14th tee, he had to get to the 16th tee, and the only way to do that was to head directly south.[/b]

As regards the article from Oct you posted, I believe it was you who said it contained all sorts of errors and misconceptions.

You KNOW CBM wanted 200 or so acres from the beginning for his plan, and you know what that plan consistently entailed.

If that's what he wanted, why did he bid on just 120 acres just down the road, shortly before he explored NGLA ?[/b]

Are you trying to win a personalized debate with me or actually trying to figure out what really happened?

I'd say that we pretty much know what happened, you're the one who's agenda driven to prove it didn't for the sake of your Merion argument.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sullivan,

Knowing the two starting points, the 1st, 18th, 9th and 10th, the hugging of the Eastern boundary to the 4th and 5th, then up to the 8th, (leven) and down to the 9th, the front nine was routed.

Macdonald tells us that he first placed the holes which were almost unamimously considered the finest of their character in Great Britain.

That would include the above holes, and, the 11th, the Sahara, then the 12th Alps, and 13th Redan.

Macdonald goes on to describe the 16th, his Road hole.  And, the 17th, his Bottle hole is another of the "finest holes.

So, in his 18 link, OUT and BACK chain of holes, he has established holes #'s 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18.

Twelve holes, only missing six holes, his 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th 14th and 15th.

Please take a look at the aerial posted. fill in those hole and you'll notice that' there's only one way to get from # 1 green to # 4 tee, you have to go NNE, which is where # 's 2 and 3 route themselves.

Then, once you leave # 5 green, you have to get to # 8 tee, and there's only one way to go along Bulls Head Bay, and that's NW, hence, #'s 6 and 7 route themselves.

Leaving you behind the Alps green at # 13 with only one direction to go to get to the 16th tee, SE, so # 14 routes itself, leaving only # 15 as the final piece of the puzzle.

Take a look at the aerial.  Fill in the 12 holes CBM alluded to and see if the other six don't fall into place on a default basis.

One other item.

In a discussion with George Bahto, years ago, we were discussing the current 7th and 12th holes (old 16th & 3rd) and the shared fairway they enjod along with the shared fairway bunkers they enjoyed, bunkers meant to capture errant tee shots at both holes.

Hence, when you examine these two holes carefully, you see that they're not just holes in isolation, but rather, siamese holes, joined at the hip (fairway)

This too leads me to believe that CBM wanted to duplicate the narrow out and back configuration he had seen in the UK.

But, he had also seen elements of that same basic configuration closer to home, closer to NGLA.

Where ?

At Garden City where he was a member.

And, it appears that the 6th and 7th fairways at GCGC just might have enjoyed shared fairways with shared fairway bunkers off their tee shots.

As David stated, from the begining the configuration of the land was a long narrow slit, starting at the SI and ending at the flank/shore of Peconic Bay.

From the very begining, the routing was preordained, self completing as Max Behr declared.

Look and study NLGA on Google Earth and I think you and any prudent person will reach the same conclusion.

[Mike Cirba]

The following is a copy of the original Founders Agreement.   CBM attached this copy in his 1912 project letter to the Founders, some of which I will refer to shortly.

On Page two he talks about how much land they are looking to acquire and what he estimates they'll need for the golf course.   The remainder is to be given in 1.5 acre lots to the Founders for building purposes.

Please judge for yourselves whether CBM is referring to the entire plan as a "suggestion", or merely the details of the proposed bond offerings.  I'll trust you won't need David to interpret it for you.  






On January 4th, 1912, with the course open for play and the clubhouse finished, CB Macdonald took the opportunity to write the Founders of the club to summarize the project to date.   In it, as referenced on the opening page (and as I've copied above), he included a copy of the orginal Founders Agreement which I've copied in full above, as well.    On the first page, Macdonald discusses timeframes and refers to his enclosure of a copy of the original agreement.



This page of the 1912 letter talks about the purchase of the 205 acres.




This page refers to the "Surplus Land" that has been INTENTIONALLY purchased, as well as its disposition.   Although not nearly as much as Macdonald originally estimated in his Founders Agreement (see below), likely due to more areas than he anticipated being unfit or swampy, as well as the strategic goal to create width for options on his ideal holes, there is still enough land left over from the 205 originally purchased to note it within a separate section of the document.




Just a few months prior to the acquisiton of the Sebonac land, in March 1906, HJ Whigham again reiterated the plan to retain a large portion of the property for Founders Building lots.




In June 1906, after Macdonald returns from abroad, he is still looking for the 200 or so acres he needs based on his original plan.




Even Max Behr recognized that CBM had purposefully purchased more land than he anticipated for golf in an article I reprinted in full a few pages back;

"Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business."


I'm not sure why David and Patrick are growing increasingly hysterical here and both refuse to answer direct questions, but it may be that they have no facts or actual verifiable evidence to support their wild claims.

[Mike Cirba]

If in mid-December 1906 CBM was still planning on eventually distributing 90 acres for lots after the course was routed, then why didn't he mention it when describing the project?  And why then why did he announce that there were already sites for houses in the area?

OH but David...he DOES mention his plans for home building sites it in December 1906.

When he refers to not being in the "beds and hash business" he is talking about not building a clubhouse or a hotel on the site as they already have decided they are going to use the Shinnecock Inn for their purposes.

BUT when he mentions home sites, CBM is talking about his OWN plans for Home sites...the proposed Building plots for his Founders.

Recall that this entire 450 acre stretch was consider wasteland and had never been surveyed.

There were NO plans by Alvord's company at that time or later for subdivisions.   In fact, this land was NEVER sub-divided, which is why Sebonack GC could get built 100 years later!  

If you know of some land plan for the sites next to NGLA, David, please produce it here for our review.






Now, will you please answer my questions?

Do you think they had located eighteen tees and greens by Dec 1906?

What parts of the Oct 06 articles do you believe to be in error and why?


The first question goes to the issue of whether the golf course was actually routed prior to securing the 205 acres.

The second question is not meant to be insulting but to get your understanding of those articles.   On the face of them, articles proclaiming that CBM purchased 250 acres of land in mid-October 1906 ARE inaccurate.   In fact, the whole premise of the article is inaccurate by definition.  

Further, they define his purchase as going to the inlet at Cold Spring, which is over a mile from the western border of NGLA, so yes, they are rife with inaccuracies and errors, by definition.

What I'd like to know is your take on them...especially the part about sending surveyors maps to golf experts abroad.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()