"Really?  Did you write in those past articles about your new theory?   That perhaps the reams of sketches came not from Wilson's trip to  Europe but from Macdonald and NGLA?  That Wison didnt go to NGLA to prepare for his trip abroad, but to talk about Merion?   That even if they didnt design Merion East, Macdonald and Whigham generally deserve a heck of a lot of credit for its creation?

Funny because I recall your your previous posts on these matters, and I detect that your position has, shall we say, evolved.   In fact, I even have copies of some of your past posts on these issues, even some you deleted.

Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you.  But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past.   

It'd be much more productive to move forward.   That is what I am trying to do."


David:

Absolutely I did not. That new theory of mine came to me very early in the morning less than a week ago and as I recall I emailed it to Morrison, Cirba and Bausch and then put it on GOLFCLUBATLAS. It's on one of these threads maybe 5-7 days ago. I think you may have commented on it but I don't remember what you said about it, although I don't remember you mentioning you said the same thing a year or so ago. But maybe you did. All the recent posts are still there and nothing has been deleted. I noticed it when Shivas reposted that post of yours a few days ago. Perhaps, I'm like you with me and I sort of skim some of your posts. 

My theory that Wilson may've used Macdonald's sketches and drawings is sort of borne out of my constant impression on this whole trip or manifest thing that it really may not have mattered when Wilson went abroad first regarding what happened at Merion in 1911. In other words, it has never really seemed to me it would've mattered when he went as far as what he and his committee did at Merion and as far as what was written about what they did at that time and as far as what Macdonald had done for them at that time which is contained in those reports two Wilson reports.

I'm pretty certain it was Wilson who returned from abroad on May 1, 1912 even if some of the others here may not think so. I have another reason to be pretty certain about that. I'm certainly not completely convinced that Wilson did not go earlier though.

But, in my opinion, no matter when he first went or how often he went I do not think that changes anything about who was responsible for what happened at Merion in 1911 and who did it. I really do think those Wilson reports are accurate on that score.

One of the reasons I started thinking again about how it really doesn't matter when Wilson went was when Sean Arble told me recently how he too feels about that kind of thing. I started coresponding with him on the IM and I started thinking about another alternative for those often reported stories around here for about the last hundred years, I guess, that Wilson returned from abroad with all these sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps. And then I woke up the other morning and it just hit me that maybe they just saw him returning from NGLA with them, not from abroad.

There have always been some odd anomalies in the Merion history books---eg on the one hand they mention he went abroad in 1910 and on the other hand one mentions 'this romantic story that he almost went down on the Titanic on his way home.'

For many years we've realized the Titanic went down perhaps a year and a half after a possible trip of Wilson's in 1910.

David:

Two days ago you said to me:

"Funny because I recall your your previous posts on these matters, and I detect that your position has, shall we say, evolved.   In fact, I even have copies of some of your past posts on these issues, even some you deleted.

Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you.  But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past."



And two days ago I said to you:

“Oh, on the contrary, I think you do. If you didn't you probably wouldn't have said what you just did above. 

Believe me, I have no concern at all if you or anyone else can show and absolutely prove, and certainly to me, how I've reinvented where I stood in the past on any matter and any issue to do with Merion as long as you've been interested in it.”


David:

I’m waiting for you to show me why and how you recall how any of my positions on the architectural history of Merion has changed. You say you have copies of some of my past posts on these issues, even some I deleted? Could I please see those posts or even one of them that shows how or why any position I’ve had about Merion’s history has changed because of anything you’ve ever said or produced? If you either can’t or won’t produce anything like that then you probably shouldn’t say such a thing, don’t you think?

The irony here seems to be that basically you and I may’ve thought very similarly about Merion’s history all along. If you don’t think so it would be very helpful of you, at this point, to point out why you don’t think so.