Bryan,
On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.
Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?
I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.
Can you not understand why I did not want to name the source?
Others found the same source subsequently and posted it. I thought contacting the source would be appropriate before posting it. I still think that was the right thing to do for me. Others, apparently didn't feel that way and posted it. That's up to them.
Sven has spelled out for you who the source is in the last few posts. I honestly do hope that you know who the source is and who you are calling out for a "moronic premise". Maybe you should man up and contact them yourself and tell them directly that they are morons.
As for your serial pillorying of me in the last page, it's troubling to me to see your continued efforts to suppress introduction and discussion of relevant information. I thought this site was about discussion of golf course architecture. I didn't think this site was about proving your debating prowess, but maybe I got that wrong too.
I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it). It's just a personal attack.
And, for the last time, I think the premise came from a credible source with access to more information than I have, and although I can see the merits of thinking it was the pro shop site, personally I can wait to see the deeds before I conclude that that's what the site was. I'm happy to see I'm so important to you that you need to spend so much time and green ink trying to knock me down. It's not very productive though, in the context of this site.