David,
Not paranoid, but we do have a history. So, I respond, just in case any of the worldwide readers might think that I don't know beans about architecture from listening to you.
To borrow a phrase you lob my way often, "You can't possibly know what I understand about Mac's philosphy on bunkers." Not from that post, and not anywhere else, but you still tell the world in a public forum that I don't know squat. I resonded to both Don M's comments specifically, and was thinking of Mac's comments on committees demanding more penal bunkers, not Mac's philosophy.
And, if not fully articulated, I was commenting on how often this site discusses architecture in terms of the best players, who probably won't show up at a club, and how Mac realized a more balanced approach to all players was important. That does seem to get lost in these discussions, at least IMHO.
Of course, your modus operandi here has often been to make assumptions, twist words, parse them, and then come to conclusions that are either comical or tragic, a la your Merion essay, depending of course, on someone's point of view. And you often tell us that you are the only guy smart enough to figure this stuff out.
So, while I do commend your interest and study of golf architecture history, I think you get off track sometimes, and particularly don't think you need to go out of the way to point out imagined flaws in mopst of my posts.