Peter:
Everything Mike is writing is rooted in "debates" from years ago.
I have no interest in furthering that saga.
Turn the page.
Sven
Sven,
I'm really not sure what to make of that comment but since returning I've written about our efforts to research the architectural history of Phoenixville Country Club, provided early articles to supplement Joe's on the beginnings of Oakmont, asked where Henry Clay Fownes may have learned about golf courses to build such an impressive first effort out of the box in 1904, contributed articles and evidence to your "History's Mysteries" thread on courses like Rock Creek Park...hell, I even bought a book to find out more about that one, updated the old West Chester Country Club thread as we try to uncover more about that course's origins, started threads asking about how much early pros were paid, (partly because I didn't know and partly because I was trying to see if paying someone $17.80 in 1915 was reasonable payment for laying out a golf course based on a payment for "professional services" I had seen in the Phoenixville Minutes), started a thread on the dangers of a "little information" having been burned similarly in the past, and have tried to avoid responding in kind to unkind comments.
On this thread I was very surprised to learn the way Old Tom Morris interactively worked with clubs over a period of time in an iterative process and to me it was very different than what's often described as "18 stakes on a Saturday afternoon" that seems to be an over-simplification of the work involved. I was guilty of that same misunderstanding and thought others might benefit from a more detailed understanding.
One of the major reasons I came back to GCA is that I was intrigued by the research work you were doing and also Jim Kennedy's. If either of you find my threads or posts or questions annoying I'm disappointed but I'm comfortable that my motives in returning are good ones looking to help the research work and continue to learn from others digging. I welcome your knowledge but you don't really need to participate in my threads if you're just looking to shut them down and discourage discussion based on some predisposition of why I'm here.
I knew when I came back here that I'd have a target on my back for some who see me as a proxy for others long gone from this group, and that's ok, frankly. That's not my problem, is it? I speak for myself, not others.
When I returned to this site Ran told me to "Have fun!", which is what I'll continue to do. To me, this is a hobby that gives me a lot of pleasure and I would appreciate simply a collegial, civil approach from others who have a similar passion.
Thanks.