Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[MCirba]

Sven,

Wasn't 1912 after the land had been cleared for golf?  As an aside per a previous discussion, it does appear from the earliest photos that Macdonald clear cut the property the width of it.  In other words, they didn't just clear hole corridors.

[Sven Nilsen]

Regarding the Ideal Holes, CBM certainly drove the process but weren't the results a sort of consensus among experts here and abroad who were familiar with those holes?  This would have almost certainly included the men on his committee, even if CBM had final say.

Are you now arguing that CBM's list of template holes was not his alone, and others, who gave ideas for their formation, should be credited in their formation?

Sound familiar?

I don't think you really understand what he was doing overseas in 1906, and exactly how long he had been putting together his list of ideal holes.  There was more to the trip than just design principals.

At NGLA, the holes can be broken down into three categories:

1.  Copies of existing holes

2.  Inspirations

3.  Originals

When you chart out where the Copies and Inspirations fall on the course map, there were a few very obvious links that needed to be added to make the course work.  

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Wasn't 1912 after the land had been cleared for golf?  As an aside per a previous discussion, it does appear from the earliest photos that Macdonald clear cut the property the width of it.  In other words, they didn't just clear hole corridors.

Mike:

You already know the answer to your question, why do you need to ask?

If you are arguing that the photo shows already cleared ground, I don't agree.  The background might (as it appears to be looking out over the course), but the foreground (the field in a swamp near Cold Stream Pond), does not appear to be.  I doubt they would have needed to clear a swamp area, one that was not going to be used as part of the course.

As mentioned already, go back and read Piper and Oakley.  It'll give you a better sense of what they did to prepare both the fairway areas and the greens prior to trying to grow grass on them.  Some of your comments here suggest you haven't quite grasped the concept, particularly the method for developing the humus that would serve as the base for the turf.

Sven

[Jeff_Brauer]

Regarding the Ideal Holes, CBM certainly drove the process but weren't the results a sort of consensus among experts here and abroad who were familiar with those holes?  This would have almost certainly included the men on his committee, even if CBM had final say.

Are you now arguing that CBM's list of template holes was not his alone, and others, who gave ideas for their formation, should be credited in their formation?

Sound familiar?

I don't think you really understand what he was doing overseas in 1906, and exactly how long he had been putting together his list of ideal holes.  There was more to the trip than just design principals.

At NGLA, the holes can be broken down into three categories:

1.  Copies of existing holes

2.  Inspirations

3.  Originals

When you chart out where the Copies and Inspirations fall on the course map, there were a few very obvious links that needed to be added to make the course work. 

Sven

Sven,

I think we understand what he did in 1906 and the general idea of a mix of holes.  What remains is that he said in March and October he was going to consult with the committee on the final list, and there are indications he did that after October 1906 and through the planning until May 1907.

Not sure how charting out the holes changes any of that, and not sure what you are saying this sounds familiar to, so please enlighten.  This is another instance where once we seem to nail down anything on this thread, someone comes up with some new tangent to distract us.  Or to put the blame on my own self,  I am having trouble interpreting what your take on this is from your cryptic post.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer.

1  You refer to the "legally binding" solicitation letter.  Respectfully you are well out of your element with such pronouncements.  I wouldn't even begin to guess at what if anything was "legally binding" in that letter without knowing a whole lot more about the facts and communications between CBM and the founders.  For just one issue, the copy of the Solicitation Agreement posted in Scotland's Gift doesn't contain any of the language about the real estate component or other investment schemes, raising the possibility that the letter we are referring to was superseded at some point in the process.  No one is denying that, in 1912, the Founders controlled excess land (to the extent of the club's rights to dispose of the land), but that is far different than suggesting that the CBM was legally bound to include a real estate component.  

2.  You speculate that CBM would have wanted "a 2 foot"topo/contour map "to design the course."  I think you are projecting your modern notions of design onto CBM's circumstances.  Look at the blueprint.  It is not what we think of as a topo or contour map.  It has some topographical features drawn on (like the Alps) but it is not a contour map. The elevation markings on the map are straight line elevations between consecutive green sites.  

Think about that.  It means that the green sites were chosen before the straight line elevations were shot.  CBM was not designing off of a 2-foot topo or contour map.   He found the green sites first, and then the elevations were shot.   So the rough routing was in place before the elevations were surveyed.  

3.  Maybe you are assuming a different time frame or something, but it seems to me that you are still speculating that CBM did not begin designing the course until after CBM took the option on the property, which was reported in mid-December 1906. The mid-October article and CBM's mid-December comments leave no doubt that he had already been planning by this point, and had accomplished quite a lot.  Take for example the Cape hole.  According to the blueprint, half the hole and the entire green site would have been underwater at high tide.  Yet CBM and Whigham were already touting it a soon to be great hole at the time CBM took the option on the property. How did they find and figure out the hole if they hadn't been planning?  Or take his comments about the other templates, or the other contours, or the starting and finishing point, or the frontage on Bullshead and Peconic, or the dimensions of the course, etc. Sure there were details left to be worked out (such as which green templates and other features to use in which places) but he was already a long ways into planning. Yes, he was still playing lip service to running his ideas by the committee, but the reality is that he and Whigham had already been out there planning the course.

4.  You speculate that he wouldn't begin routing until after consulting with his committee.  First, he was "consulting" with the primary member of his Committee, H.J. Whigham, when they were  out there going over the land.  Second, he had already been "consulting" with his committee while still abroad!  Third, the idea that decisions would be made by committee may have sounded good in the press, but it doesn't seem to have been the way things worked with CBM.  

[MCirba]

Guys,

I think we can determine when CBM and Whigham first rode over the property, or at least pretty closely.

Here is part of Whigham's eulogy of Macdonald titled 'The Evangelist of Golf" that was published in Country Life Magazine.

Note that it's prior to securing the land and at least one of the "2 or 3" trips via horseback CBM claimed the pair made.   Also please note that he got the year wrong by one year, something to frustrate us internet sleuths all these years later and possibly leading to another 50 pages of debate.    

But I think it makes perfect sense, it apparently was so meaningful to him he still recalls and names the day and month and should hopefully at least put that one to it's final and much-needed resting place.  

“I went out with Macdonald to ride over the land which is now the National, and on coming back to the Shinnecock Club for lunch we found four elderly members awaiting us with dire prophecies of what would happen if we selected a site so near their own club, one of the first three golf clubs in America and the most fashionable. Yet on that first Saturday of September in 1907 there were only four old members in their sixties or seventies in the clubhouse, and they confessed that they had to contribute a pretty penny each year to keep things going."

"The very next year on the first Saturday of September I counted over fifty players at Shinnecock, many young people among them. The fame the National had spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to took over the project, and Shinnecock, instead of being hurt by the proximity of the National, had taken on a new lease of life."

[DMoriarty]

Mike, you have got to be kidding me.  HJW said 1907, not 1906.  You just cannot take the quote and change the year to your liking!

You do this again and again.  When the facts don't say what you want them to say, you just change the facts to fit the story.

[MCirba]

Jeff Brauer.

For just one issue, the copy of the Solicitation Agreement posted in Scotland's Gift doesn't contain any of the language about the real estate component or other investment schemes, raising the possibility that the letter we are referring to was superseded at some point in the process.  No one is denying that, in 1912, the Founders controlled excess land (to the extent of the club's rights to dispose of the land), but that is far different than suggesting that the CBM was legally bound to include a real estate component.  

David,

If he didn't take it out of his 1912 Letter to the Founders, what would it matter that it was superfluous by 1928 when he published Scotland's Gift?   The course was built and opened by 1912 yet he still felt compelled to address the matter directly.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

I think we understand what he did in 1906 and the general idea of a mix of holes.  What remains is that he said in March and October he was going to consult with the committee on the final list, and there are indications he did that after October 1906 and through the planning until May 1907.

Not sure how charting out the holes changes any of that, and not sure what you are saying this sounds familiar to, so please enlighten.  This is another instance where once we seem to nail down anything on this thread, someone comes up with some new tangent to distract us.  Or to put the blame on my own self,  I am having trouble interpreting what your take on this is from your cryptic post.

Before he saw the land, he knew what he wanted to build in concept.

Once he saw the land, it moved beyond the concept phase and he had a very good idea as to how many of those holes would fit on the land (a parcel of land described with a good bit of specificity in late 1906).

The rest was gap filling and ironing out the details.

Its a common sense interpretation of the timing of the development of the routing.  

By Dec. of 1906, CBM had a very good idea as to what the final product would look like.  All of the tangents (ground cover, mosquitos, when the clearing occurred, committee work, access roads, etc.) are all tangents trying to divert us from this core concept.  

Does that make sense?

Sven

[MCirba]

Mike, you have got to be kidding me.  HJW said 1907, not 1906.  You just cannot take the quote and change the year to your liking!

You do this again and again.  When the facts don't say what you want them to say, you just change the facts to fit the story.

David,

Macdonald already owned the land by September of 1907.   Why would anyone warn him about the consequences of "if we selected a site so near..."?

That makes no sense whatsoever does it?   They'd already selected their site.

[DMoriarty]

If he didn't take it out of his 1912 Letter to the Founders, what would it matter that it was superfluous by 1928 when he published Scotland's Gift?   The course was built and opened by 1912 yet he still felt compelled to address the matter directly.

I don't know why the version is different than the one in the 1912 letter (the one presumably sent again to the Founders in 1906.) I don't know what the charter (if there was one) said about these issues.  That is my point.   We don't know an awful lot about CBM's deal with the Founders, so I don't think Jeff should be making pronouncements about what was binding and what was not.

I have no idea what you mean by "superfluous by 1928." In Scotland's Gift, CBM provided a copy of an Agreement and a list of signators.  That raises the possibility, at least, that at some point the Founders agreed to something different than what was on the other version of the solicitation letter, whether it was in a subsequent letter or the charter.   Maybe he left the language out at printing.  Or maybe there was a different version of the agreement.  We don't know.  

[MCirba]

From Scotland's Gift, a somewhat similar story, but this one doesn't make much sense if the year is 1907 either, because we learned yesterday that all of the greens had already been built by September 1907.   Note also his claim that they were discussing "the possibility of the future classical course".  

There were many who thought my idea a pipe dream, and even
some of my best friends felt I was throwing away my time and my
friends' affections and money by trying to build an ideal golf course.
I remember well when in the aultumn of 1907 with little or nothing
to show but n weary waste of land with a beautiful sunset and
stretches of water and meadow.  

 I was enthusiastically declaiming to a few friends whom I
had asked for luncheon at the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club the
possibility of the future classical course, an intimate
friend of mine, Urban H. Broughton, left the table. Later he
confided to John Grier that he feared because of his affection for
me and believing that I would be so much disappointed, he would
drop a tear.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, David, it seems you reserve that privilege only for yourself!

Your laughable non answers to all my questions are mostly speculation on your part.  My points are taken directly from the written record, and you never address those other than with vagueness and going back to the same tired passages in Scotland's Gift, whereas my timeline includes that and contemporary articles.

And, if I know nothing of law, then certainly you should  do the right thing and admit you know nothing about designing golf courses, then or now.

Sorry for the snark in response to yours.

As to our possible areas of agreement, we do agree he was out there before October 1906, and obviously (since he sought an option) he did enough work to satisfy himself the property (with wiggle room) was what he wanted.  That included having Raynor draw a contour map (which doesn't show on the blueprint posted here, and which I have discussed) and other things, including IMHO, setting some practical boundaries based on his six holes, the Inn, the 205 acres, the bay and possible yacht club, etc. I know you think, and I can agree it is the early stages of routing. I tend to call it more analysis, but would agree if you like that I am being finicky.

That said, I posted the parts of the record that could lead one to conclusions that the routing occurred later.  Rather than address those factually, you pick at the edges. I suspect its because that's all you can do.

Setting aside my belief that the contents of a solicitation letter would constitute a contract, and I may be wrong, the written record of the participants has housing mentioned as late as March.  By December, CBM declares the investment portion not consistent with his goals.  So, the change seems to have happened between those two months, strictly according to the written record.

You have stated it was NEVER a part of the plan, presumably because he only offered on 120 acres on the canal site, after the draft solicitation letter was sent out.  Believe me, I can see that, and its not unreasonable. But then,you have insisted that NEVER is the only logical conclusion, but to do so, we have to figure all other mentions of it are a mistake beyond that.  If there was one mention of it going away before December, I would buy it.  But there isn't.

However, you and I agree that the land company probably didn't like it.  Well, if they didn't like it, but still offered to sell the exact same 205 acres, as proposed in 1904 you presume they didn't know about that solicitation.  To me, that just seems that you presume there were a lot of dumb people back then.  Or your presume that CBM had changed his mind on both 120 acres being suitable for a golf course, prior to selecting any specific site, mind you, but never documented that in any of his forays to the press or friends.  Since he didn't, until proven otherwise, I presume it was decided in the months the record shows it was.

The only documented contacts between the two entities are in June 1906 when he returns, and October 1907 when the option is negotiated.  Doesn't it make sense that this is when the issue was formally put on the table (most likely at the option contract) and resolved that SHPB didn't want CBM to put in any housing?  It fits the March letter from Whigham including villas, the 205 acres purchase amount, and the subsequent diminishment of the idea.

Your timeline really doesn't, thus creating reasonable doubt among reasonable people.

Cheers.

[DMoriarty]

So now you think that both CBM and Whigham didn't know 1906 from 1907?  

You can't just continue to make up your own facts, Mike.  

Macdonald already owned the land by September of 1907.   Why would anyone warn him about the consequences of "if we selected a site so near..."?

Because that is the kind of thing bitter old men say when they see development and clearing next to their property  And remember, as you are so fond of telling us, the project was still in the fairly early stages of development in 1907.

Most importantly, Whigham said 1907, and the description of the fame the National having spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to took over the project makes much more sense in the 1907-1908 timeframe than in the 1906-1907 timeframe.

Regardless, even if you were correct (and I don't think you are)a September date fits within the timeline I've suggested, and there is no use arguing over it.  If you want to continue to change the facts to suit your story, I can't stop you.
________________________________________

Now when will you answer my questions:

1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?

2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?

[MCirba]

David,

You're really just being David.   I've become rather fond and expect no less.

At what point have I changed facts?   Words like "I think", "I wonder" etc. indicate opinion and not statement of fact.

I suggested he may have gotten the year wrong because otherwise what Whigham wrote makes no sense at all, and these bitter old men were apparently CBM's close friends.   

If it was 1907 and they were close friends why woudn't he just take them over and show the progress on his newly completed greens?

[Jeff_Brauer]

If he didn't take it out of his 1912 Letter to the Founders, what would it matter that it was superfluous by 1928 when he published Scotland's Gift?   The course was built and opened by 1912 yet he still felt compelled to address the matter directly.

I don't know why the version is different than the one in the 1912 letter (the one presumably sent again to the Founders in 1906.) I don't know what the charter (if there was one) said about these issues.  That is my point.   We don't know an awful lot about CBM's deal with the Founders, so I don't think Jeff should be making pronouncements about what was binding and what was not.

David, fair enough on my pronouncement, although I didn't have a lot of concerns in saying a written agreement that promises things in exchange for money constituted a contract.  Of course they can be amended by signees.  As you say, there is no record of it, and we don't know.  So, IMHO, gauging the timing of that is best (for now) related to the documents we have, and I think that is a position you support often.

It is mentioned as part of the plan by a participant in March 1906, but by December 1906, CBM allows that it is not so much part of the plan.  As far as we know, that written seems to narrow down when the decision takes place, absent the actual contracts and other documents that would be more specific, and which we would all like to see.  

Not sure why that would sound so unreasonable.

Just read your post to Mike.  First, it is quizzical, but I wouldn't rule out HJW simply reading Scotlands Gift to prepare the eulogy, and making the same mistake that CBM may have made when writing several years after the actual events took place..

I am not sure how 1907 fits your timeline better, so please explain.  I would agree NGLA was more famous after opening, but on the other hand, it was famous before the land was selected, in the papers constantly, etc. from 1902 or so as CBM's ideal golf course.  That opens the door a bit for the 1906 interpretation.

Bullying phrases like "fits within the timeline I've suggested, and there is no use arguing over it" add nothing to the discussion, and sways no one to your side.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

1. I don't know how to design a course, but CBM sure did.  And his version of what happened is much different than your version of what you think happened.  

2. Contrary to your claim, your points are not taken from the written record.  
  - Show me in the record where it says that CBM needed a 2-foot contour map  to design the course?
  - Show me in the record where it says that they created such a map?
  - Show me in the record where it says Raynor was out there in 1906?
  - Show me in the record where it says the real estate hypothetical was "legally binding?"
  - I could go on with about 10 more, but you know the record doesn't say any of this.

As to our possible areas of agreement, we do agree he was out there before October 1906, and obviously (since he sought an option) he did enough work to satisfy himself the property (with wiggle room) was what he wanted. That included having Raynor draw a contour map (which doesn't show on the blueprint posted here, and which I have discussed) and other things, including IMHO, setting some practical boundaries based on his six holes, the Inn, the 205 acres, the bay and possible yacht club, etc. I know you think, and I can agree it is the early stages of routing. I tend to call it more analysis, but would agree if you like that I am being finicky.

I agree that they were out there before mid-October going over the property in the initial stages of planning the course, and that according to the article some form of maps with elevations had been created and sent overseas, but I don't know much of anything about these maps. I certainly don't know that they were "contour maps" or that Raynor had drawn them.  I don't know if CBM was seeking an option at this point, only that the developer had agreed to sell him land for his course.  

That said, I posted the parts of the record that could lead one to conclusions that the routing occurred later.  Rather than address those factually, you pick at the edges. I suspect its because that's all you can do.

I've addressed them repeatedly.  If they said what you imply (and they don't), then they would directly conflict with CBM's descriptions about already having found a bunch of holes!    If CBM has set the start and finish, found a bunch of holes, and described the shape of the course, you can't logically claim that the routing process hasn't started yet!   If that means that, in your mind, CBM contradicted himself, then so be it.  It doesn't change the fact that the routing process was well under way!

Setting aside my belief that the contents of a solicitation letter would constitute a contract, and I may be wrong, the written record of the participants has housing mentioned as late as March.  By December, CBM declares the investment portion not consistent with his goals.  So, the change seems to have happened between those two months, strictly according to the written record.

Those March letters are very likely repeating old information, but who cares?   We know from CBM's December letter and from the developer that there was NO HOUSING COMPONENT ON THE LAND AT NGLA. That has been my point from day one.  I don't care if you guys still think it might have still been an active idea in March.  It makes no difference for what happened at NGLA.  

You have stated it was NEVER a part of the plan, presumably because he only offered on 120 acres on the canal site, after the draft solicitation letter was sent out.  Believe me, I can see that, and its not unreasonable. But then,you have insisted that NEVER is the only logical conclusion, but to do so, we have to figure all other mentions of it are a mistake beyond that.  If there was one mention of it going away before December, I would buy it.  But there isn't.

It was never part of the plan AT NGLA.  Surely you can see the difference between my version of what I am saying and your version of what you think I am saying.  

As for the rest, I don't care enough to argue about.

[DMoriarty]

David,

You're really just being David.   I've become rather fond and expect no less.

At what point have I changed facts?

When you wrote:  "Also please note that he got the year wrong by one year, something to frustrate us internet sleuths all these years later and possibly leading to another 50 pages of debate."

Plus, your whole theory is based on you changing the dates of both HJW's and CBM's recollections.  If that is not changing the facts, I don't know what is.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now how about you answer my questions:

1. How did they know what to clear if they hadn't marked the borders?

2. Why do you have them clearing land that they did not own?

[DMoriarty]

I am not sure how 1907 fits your timeline better, so please explain.  I would agree NGLA was more famous after opening, but on the other hand, it was famous before the land was selected, in the papers constantly, etc. from 1902 or so as CBM's ideal golf course.  That opens the door a bit for the 1906 interpretation.

I don't think it fits my timeline "better." I think that there is no justifiable reason to change Whigham's words, especially since in my opinion the description fits better with the 1907-1908 timeline.  By my reading over the years, it seems that pilgrimages didn't really start to NGLA until the construction was a bit further along.  

Bullying phrases like "fits within the timeline I've suggested, and there is no use arguing over it" add nothing to the discussion, and sways no one to your side.

Bullying?  By leaving Mike to his own interpretation I am bullying him?  How so?  

I'm wasting too much time as it is.  I don't have time to argue endlessly with Mike about every one of his tangents, especially when we have had this exact same conversation in the past!  If it mattered to the big picture of how NGLA was created I might, but it doesn't, so I am agreeing to disagree.  That you would see that as bullying shows you come into this with some pretty loaded opinions.  

To put it another way, it really doesn't make much of a difference to my understanding whether they first rode the property in June, July, August, or even September of 1906.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

1. I don't know how to design a course, but CBM sure did.  And his version of what happened is much different than your version of what you think happened.  

2. Contrary to your claim, your points are not taken from the written record.  
  - Show me in the record where it says that CBM needed a 2-foot contour map  to design the course?
  - Show me in the record where it says that they created such a map?
  - Show me in the record where it says Raynor was out there in 1906?
All from Page 203 of Scotlands Gift
  - Show me in the record where it says the real estate hypothetical was "legally binding?"
Yes that is my assumption, but isn't money changing hands in exchange for a service or product an agreement?
 - I could go on with about 10 more, but you know the record doesn't say any of this.
Horsefeathers, I have showed you where it does. You never actually answer, you just tell us I am wrong (and Mike, etc.)

As to our possible areas of agreement, we do agree he was out there before October 1906, and obviously (since he sought an option) he did enough work to satisfy himself the property (with wiggle room) was what he wanted. That included having Raynor draw a contour map (which doesn't show on the blueprint posted here, and which I have discussed) and other things, including IMHO, setting some practical boundaries based on his six holes, the Inn, the 205 acres, the bay and possible yacht club, etc. I know you think, and I can agree it is the early stages of routing. I tend to call it more analysis, but would agree if you like that I am being finicky.

I agree that they were out there before mid-October going over the property in the initial stages of planning the course, and that according to the article some form of maps with elevations had been created and sent overseas, but I don't know much of anything about these maps. I certainly don't know that they were "contour maps" or that Raynor had drawn them.  I don't know if CBM was seeking an option at this point, only that the developer had agreed to sell him land for his course.

See pages 202-3 of your bible, Scotland's Gift. It says he had him produce a contour map. the October article says he produced a contour map.  Surely 2+2=4, no? My repeated question is how in good faith to these discussions continually ignore those as wrong or insignificant.

That said, I posted the parts of the record that could lead one to conclusions that the routing occurred later.  Rather than address those factually, you pick at the edges. I suspect its because that's all you can do.

I've addressed them repeatedly.  If they said what you imply (and they don't), then they would directly conflict with CBM's descriptions about already having found a bunch of holes!    If CBM has set the start and finish, found a bunch of holes, and described the shape of the course, you can't logically claim that the routing process hasn't started yet!   If that means that, in your mind, CBM contradicted himself, then so be it.  It doesn't change the fact that the routing process was well under way!

This is probably our area of closest agreement.  It may be semantics, which we have argued before.  And I may be more finicky than the record allows.  I don't really disagree that he had started finding holes. However, I stated and believed that interpreting the record is better if we include both contemporary documents and Scotland's Gift, written many years later.  I still believe that. If CBM said in October that they would be setting lengths and picking features later, then I think he was largely doing later, even if it is somewhat confusing wording in today's parlance.

I will disagree that my articles don't say what I think, despite your protests.

Setting aside my belief that the contents of a solicitation letter would constitute a contract, and I may be wrong, the written record of the participants has housing mentioned as late as March.  By December, CBM declares the investment portion not consistent with his goals.  So, the change seems to have happened between those two months, strictly according to the written record.

Those March letters are very likely repeating old information, but who cares?   We know from CBM's December letter and from the developer that there was NO HOUSING COMPONENT ON THE LAND AT NGLA. That has been my point from day one.  I don't care if you guys still think it might have still been an active idea in March.  It makes no difference for what happened at NGLA.  

Show me any documentation that HJW writes in March using the same language as the 1904 letters? It is new prose. He would be in a position to know.  He was intelligent enough to write. He wrote at the order of CBM. You use the phrase "very likely" and are not certain.  You have no documentation other than your opinion.

You have stated it was NEVER a part of the plan, presumably because he only offered on 120 acres on the canal site, after the draft solicitation letter was sent out.  Believe me, I can see that, and its not unreasonable. But then, you have insisted that NEVER is the only logical conclusion, but to do so, we have to figure all other mentions of it are a mistake beyond that.  If there was one mention of it going away before December, I would buy it.  But there isn't.

It was never part of the plan AT NGLA.  Surely you can see the difference between my version of what I am saying and your version of what you think I am saying.  

I agree that is what you said and I see the difference even if I skipped some exact wording in typing.  However, the meat of the matter is that I presented contemporary documents logically outlining a different theory that is more than reasonable, and your only (and continued) responses are along the lines of below - you don't care to talk about it, there is no sense arguing, etc.  Never really a new factual discussion, other than you think this is what happened, even if it varies from the record.

A few of us basically call B.S. at those tactics, and see them as a weakness in your position, and your reluctance to admit any weakness in your position (to be fair there are a few times you have acknowledged we would all like more info)  But in this case,  I have asked repeatedly simple questions and you again pick at edges, like exact wording, telling the world we don't understand your theory. When we ask to understand it, and you tell us we don't, it does get frustrating.  In other words, you aren't the only one feeling like you beat the head against the wall and am wasting too much time on this. Of course, we could all just agree to stop posting and our long national (get it) nightmare would be over!


As for the rest, I don't care enough to argue about.

As to the recent 1906/7 argument, I see what Mike says, but it would have to be deemed inconclusive. But, it was an attempt to bring a new quote forward for discussion.

I do note you distinguish between your understand and a consensus understanding this type of thread should be about. Frankly, I have seen you use that phrase before, too.  It sounds a bit dodgy to me in context. But, to be fair, I guess all we can say so far is we all have our own understandings, even though in some cases, both yours and mine cannot be correct.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  Page 205 of Scotland's gift does not provide the date when when Raynor was first hired.   It does not say anything about a "2-foot" contour map.   It does say that a contour map was created, but it does not say that this was before the course was routed.   Elsewhere CBM suggested that a contour map then plaster model would be created to aid on construction, but it DOES NOT say that a contour map would be created before planning began.

You assume that there was a full, detailed 2-foot contour map in mid-October and you may be correct, but I don't go that far.  I am sticking with what the article says, maps with with elevations marked.  This could be a contour map, or it could be something else more like the blueprint.

As for the HJW article, I am going to wait until I see the original (not the wire version) before I draw any definite conclusions about what is HJW and what isn't.  I say this because there were similar articles written in the same timeframe referencing a letter CBM had sent to the rest of the committee (Travis and Whigham) and these articles contain language from the 1904 agreement which is not included in CBM's letter.  So, while it could be that Whigham wrote the article as it is written, but I have doubts.   It might be another press release situation where the papers are picking up on language from an included copy of an agreement.  But as I said, I don't care much either way.  

As for your demand that I address what you think is your big theory, no thanks.  It has all been covered before.  Believe what you want to believe.   My reason for being in this conversation it to put an end to this silly notion that CBM originally intended a housing component at NGLA that didn't get dropped until later in the planning process.   Surely no one but Mike still believes this is a real thing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

You might be right. CBM says contour maps, the October article says all the elevations have been marked. I guess I can't see why they would make one after.  Seems like a lot of work after construction for an as built, or just to create that plaster model correctly, but stranger things have happened.

As to housing, everyone agrees it was dropped, I just put together the pieces as the written record said. I don't even think you represent Mike correctly, if you think he was expecting a real estate type plat map of exactly 90 acres (or 60 according to HJW in March)  I am not sure why you would think the wire version would seriously change a specific phrase of the HJW letter. I suppose it could happen, but its not likely, and it is at the moment the best we have.

Of course, an informed (or semi informed, if your prefer) discussion is hard to carry on when one side says they don't care to address the other with facts, but repeat the same opinions previously expressed. 

I will take a look at that blueprint again over the weekend.

Have a good one.

[MCirba]

I'm wasting too much time as it is.  I don't have time to argue endlessly with Mike about every one of his tangents, especially when we have had this exact same conversation in the past!  If it mattered to the big picture of how NGLA was created I might, but it doesn't, so I am agreeing to disagree.  That you would see that as bullying shows you come into this with some pretty loaded opinions.  

To put it another way, it really doesn't make much of a difference to my understanding whether they first rode the property in June, July, August, or even September of 1906.

David,

Honestly, who is forcing you to respond to my posts?   I'm picturing you tied to a chair at gunpoint at this point because it seems your responses to my posts happen within minutes virtually any time of the day or night!  

Seriously, we both spend too much time on this, David.

And in reading your explanations on a number of matters including the clearing, and now particularly regarding the surveying where I think we agree, I think we aren't so far apart after all...perhaps a couple of months at most, so that's a good thing I think, although you may recoil in horror at the thought of it.  

Have a good weekend.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  why won't you answer my questions?

[MCirba]

As for your demand that I address what you think is your big theory, no thanks.  It has all been covered before.  Believe what you want to believe.   My reason for being in this conversation it to put an end to this silly notion that CBM originally intended a housing component at NGLA that didn't get dropped until later in the planning process.   Surely no one but Mike still believes this is a real thing.

David,

I just saw this in your response to Jeff.   I'll answer your questions about clearing when I get a chance this weekend but for now I'd just say;

As far as your demand that I address any questions about what you think is your big theory, no thanks. It has all been covered before. Believe what you want to believe. My reason for being in this conversation is to put an end to this silly notion that CBM did not originally intend a housing component at NGLA, and that we have no real factual way of knowing, at this time, when or how it may have been dropped. I am aware of numerous people who believe this was a real thing.