David,
Well, I have seen it happen all ways. Not just talking about this specific incident, but in general, when we attack, others defend.
None here are perfect, but not every fault is shared equally among us, either. You won't find me repeatedly posting false information or circling back again and again to re-cover discredited information. That is Mike's game, and it impedes any real progress.
In some ways, I think Pat is defending his tenuous quick routing theory because I keep saying its false, for example. I do understand what he is saying, once the parameters were set, but disagree with his phrasing. Anyway, I think most of the length of these threads comes to that, on all sides.
Patrick has been in and out of various threads, but before this one I don't think he had any idea what it was like to have to deal with Mike over the entirety of one of these long threads. I think this experience has shocked, dismayed, and disappointed him. So it should be no surprise that he is wary of every claim and that he has his hackles up and is ready to battle.
As for your particular battle with Patrick I haven't paid it much attention. Last I checked, Patrick generally agreed with me that the course was routed during the 2-3 horseback ride
as well as the ensuing period during which they again studied the contours in earnest, and that this process took place before they took a formal option on the property. Just like it says in Scotland's Gift. Within those rough constraints I don't think you, Patrick, or any of us knows exactly when CBM had located every hole or when he had figured enough that we would call it a routing, and I don't think it matters much, at least not to me. Mike is the one who has repeatedly tried to make this about whether there was a one day routing, but that is only because he mistakenly believes it helps his Merion argument.
I don't know why historical trivia is so fascinating, but I like to know the backstory. Your theory that he just went and asked for 120 acres for just golf in the area to be developed as opposed to a specific 120 acres he had scouted is as good an explanation as any, and would fit all the known facts and fits the CBM narrative, especially if we accept the Sept pony ride from Whigham as suggesting the whole acquisition scenario played out rather quickly after June 2006. It might explain the rather broad land desriptions in those articles that confuse Mike, no?
First, I wouldn't call it my theory. I was just pointing out that it was a possibility, as it is a possibility that he wanted a specifically defined piece of land near the canal, and everything in between those two.
Second, I don't think this changes any of the analysis about the description in those October articles. While CBM did not nail down the location, CBM did tell us he didn't want to be next to SHGC and that he offered to buy land "near the canal." And he made these representations in the context of wanting to buy land on the 2000+ acres of land controlled by SHPBRC, and that land ran from the canal to just past SHGC. The canal was as far away from SHGC as he could get on that property. Within the context of his description it would make no sense for him to have described the area adjacent to the Shinnecock as "near the Canal."
Third, Whigham said the ride was 1907, not 1906. Even if it was 1906, we have no way of knowing how long they had been working on the project prior to that ride. You seem to be assuming that this must have been the initial ride(s) but Whigham doesn't say that. And even if it was the initial ride on the Sebonack Neck property, that doesn't really tell us the timing of the Canal property.
I like to know the backstory as well, but only if it is knowable from the source material. Unless some more information comes forward about the Canal property, all we will know is what CBM told us; he wanted to be far away from SHGC and he tried to buy property near the Canal, which was as far away as he could get from SHGC on that large parcel.