[T_MacWood]

Since the topic of schools of architecture has come up of late...do you think a Pennsylvannia School would be more accurate label to the Philadelphia School?

Afterall the designs of those architects were in response to a percieved inferiority based on national and regional competitions of the Pennsylvania 'team'. It is also interesting to analyze the architectural form of their response...very challenging tests--let us identify and develop championship caliber golfers. Pine Valley, Oakmont and Merion did that.

Along the usual names I'd consider including the name of Sam Heebner, and perhaps a handful of the other men. One can not discount Colt's roll in the formation of this 'School'...its origins can be traced back to the time of his visit.

Speaking of schools...should George Thomas be more a part of a California School?

[wsmorrison]

Samuel Heebner?  He introduced golf to the Philadelphia Cricket club, was  a member at Sunnybrook and was on the 1st Exec Committee of the Golf Assoc of Philadelphia.  What were his architectural contributions that would have you include him in a group of golf architects?  Sorry, but I've not yet come across information that details any of his architectural work.  Or was he a disciple of Hutchinson and Morris and thus the founder of all Golden Age schools?

Who are the other handful of men you'd put into the school?  I thought there wasn't a school and it was just a catchy phrase.  You seemed to cast doubt on it in an earlier thread.

Why don't you add CB Macdonald to the school since he advised Wilson before his trip to the UK?  You even go so far as to say that he contributed to the design of the course in some substanitive way.

If you can trace the origins of the Philadelphia School to Colt's role in its formation then you know when it started, yet you asked me.  

Didn't Crump wish to build more than just a winter golf site when he started developing Pine Valley before Colt ever was asked to come in?  Didn't Hugh Wilson and his committee start the project that would become Merion East, intended to be a vast improvement in Philadelphia golf, before Colt ever visited?  Yet you say the origins begin with his visit.  What's that all about?

[wsmorrison]

Didn't Tom Paul propose including Fownes in the Philadelphia School and calling it the Pennsylvania School on this site quite some time ago?  I know he wrote of it a year or so ago in Philadelphia Golfer Magazine and again for the US Amateur program for Merion this year.  

[TEPaul]

This thread is really funny---another example of Tom MacWood trying to make more out of what is or was really there in the first place. He might even throw in a two  part essay on the lives and interests of three generations of Heebners to attempt to build his point that the Philadelphia School should now include all the architects of Pennsyvlania and even England's Harry Colt who may've spent a grand total of two weeks in the Delaware Valley in his entire life. If he generalizes far enough maybe he can throw in the Arts and Crafts Movement as the primary influence on those six friends and PVGC members who some refer to today as the Philly School of architecture which was really not much more than those six guys who spent time at PVGC during its interesting creation.  :0

[TEPaul]

"Why would you suggest the subject of the Philadelphia School would be a sensitive subject to us?”

I assumed that after Wayne said he’d prefer to discuss the particulars of the Philadelphia School off line, and after the discussion continued on line, he eventually said he'd prefer not to continue.

Tom MacWood:

That’s probably because he was as frustrated trying to have an intelligent discussion about your essay on the arts and crafts movement as I am. He asked you a few questions about it and your response, instead of answering him, was to ask him about the Philly School of architecture stating you were trying to find some double standard. Double standard about what?

"What in the world is that all about?”

What’s what all about?

You said you’re being questioned about you’re A/C Movement essay because you wrote about Crump. I was asking you what that was all about? Are you actually under some impression that I'm asking you questions about your conclusion and suggestion regarding the Golden Age being renamed the "arts and crafts" movement because you decided to write and article on George Crump? If you want to talk about acting defensively, talk about that, because that sure sounds like what it is to me. Next you'll probably be telling us if we ever ask you a question about anything you write we're only asking you because you wrote and article on George Crump.   Jeesus man, get a grip on yourself.

"Who do you suppose it was who may’ve first coined the term 'Philadelphia School of Architecture', Tom? "

I believe Geoff Shackelford was the first to coin the term Philadelphia School (along with the Ross School, MacKenzie School, Monterey School and the National School). Why?

Congratulations, you got that right. Why don’t you ask Geoff why he didn’t include Samuel Heebner in his charter about the “Philadelphia School of Architecture” in “The Golden Age of Golf Design”? Why don’t you ask him why he didn’t include Colt? Why don’t you ask him why he didn’t name that book “The Arts and Crafts Age of Golf Design” instead of "The Golden Age of Golf Design".  

"I think it’s an excellent example of why I believe you have a very odd and inaccurate way of looking at golf course architecture, its evolution and history."

You are entitled to your opinion. I believe that is what you said after learning I was writing an essay on George Crump.

I never said a thing like that----ever---regarding Crump. All we ever asked you was how you could prove Crump committed suicide. The threads in the back pages on that subject are replete with our questions to you about why you felt the manner of Crump’s premature death made any difference whatsoever to the perception or reality of who was responsible for what during the creation of PVGC. You basically tried to avoid those questions after at first implying on here that you thought PVGC decided to glorify Crump after he shot himseld and to perhaps cover up that fact in some kind of glorification campaign at Colt's expense.

You said to me on the phone that you felt the fact that Crump shot himself was the precise reason the club and also the Philadelphia golf community decided to glorify Crump and minimize Colt’s part. And I told you on those threads a number of times I thought that was the most ridiculous suggestion I’d heard. Thank God following that discussion on here you decided not to make that point in your essay on Crump.

You also told me on the IM of this website and on the phone that you planned to write an essay on how an expert researcher/writer who attempted to write about Crump or his death was harrassed. That one I really love! But I'm sure you'll conveniently deny that.

You called your essay on Crump “Portrait of a Legend”. I think Philadelphia and most who know golf architecture and PVGC have felt Crump was somewhat of a legend for what he did at PVGC for about 85 years now so that was hardly a revelation on your part but certainly no one knew for sure that the rumor that had been going around for decades that he shot himself was true. A good question might be why no one ever bothered to find out! The truth is in this town and at PVGC, Tom, anyone who ever heard that rumor obviously felt it made no difference how he died---the fact that he did die suddenly was always the only tragedy and lose to his friends and the club? And that’s still the feeling!

Again, I thought you treated the revelation of the truth of the circumstances of his death (which you certainly did prove) very well but I’m still trying to figure out what point, if any, you may’ve been trying to make regarding the architecture of PVGC and Crump’s part in it. Since you’d been attempting to make a point on this web-site of the importance of Colt’s part in the creation of PVGC, I was very happy to see you didn’t try to make that point in your essay on Crump. Why did you decide to give up on that point, in your essay on Crump, by the way?    

But who knows, at the rate you're going you'll probably try to convince someone that the real influence on the architecture of PVGC and who did it was Horace Hutchinson, Country Life Magazine and the "arts and crafts" movement.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Sam Heebner was the long time president of the GAP (during the period in question) and involved in the design of Whitemarsh Valley with Thomas (which is arguably the first top notch course in Philly).

TE
"You said you’re being questioned about you’re A/C Movement essay because you wrote about Crump. I was asking you what that was all about? Are you actually under some impression that I'm asking you questions about your conclusion and suggestion regarding the Golden Age being renamed the "arts and crafts" movement because you decided to write and article on George Crump? If you want to talk about acting defensively, talk about that, because that sure sounds like what it is to me. Next you'll probably be telling us if we ever ask you a question about anything you write we're only asking you because you wrote and article on George Crump."

I may be way off base, but when you asked me if it was OK to thoroughly analyze my A&C essay five years after I wrote it and days after you learned I was writing an essay on Crump, I suspected they might be both related. That and the threats of litigation and blackmail.

[T_MacWood]

TE
"Again, I thought you treated the revelation of the truth of the circumstances of his death (which you certainly did prove) very well but I’m still trying to figure out what point, if any, you may’ve been trying to make regarding the architecture of PVGC and Crump’s part in it. Since you’d been attempting to make a point on this web-site of the importance of Colt’s part in the creation of PVGC, I was very happy to see you didn’t try to make that point in your essay on Crump. Why did you decide to give up on that point, in your essay on Crump, by the way? "

When I made the decision to write an essay on Crump, I told those who assisted me at the very start--Ran, Paul, Geoff and Tommy--that I was only interested in exploring an area that had been neglected in my view, Crump and his life...I'd let others argue about who did what and who deserves credit for what.

[TEPaul]

"I may be way off base, but when you asked me if it was OK to thoroughly analyze my A&C essay five years after I wrote it and days after you learned I was writing an essay on Crump, I suspected they might be both related. That and the threats of litigation and blackmail."

Hold on a second Pal! You sure are off base. The reason I asked you about your A/C Movement essay is a few contributors on here mentioned to me they thought your essay was all fire and fury and that the conclusion of it just didn't connect at all---not only to historical reality but also in the way you actually wrote it. For some on here who know more about these eras than you seem to be giving them credit for simply think your conclusion was a pretty large stretch.

"That and the threats of litigation and blackmail."

Man, you really are something else. Now you seem paranoid. Who ever said a thing about blackmail? Blackmail about what? I most certainly did mention to you that the township supervisor of Merchantville NJ said to me if you tried to quote him in writing as telling you on the telephone that he had seen Crump's death certificate he certainly would be willing to produce an affadavit to the contrary. He never said he'd sue you---he only told me he did not say such a thing to you. What he said to me is he'd never seen his death certificate and he had no idea if he shot himself. Both he, the judge and the mayor of Merchantville said they did not believe Crump even died in Merchantville. He also told me he'd like to see you come to Merchantville and repeat what you told me he told you. Is that what you think is blackmail?  

You said to me he told you it was illegal to mention what was on Crump's death certificate in his position. He merely told me he never said he told you he'd seen Crump's death certificate.

You actually told me on the phone you think he only admitted to you on the phone he'd seen Crump's death certificate (after mentioning to you---a perfect stranger on the phone---that it was illegal for him to tell anyone that) because you felt you convinced him you were some expert researcher on building or golf architecture or whatever. You seem pretty fond of telling everyone on here that too, wouldn't you say?  

But don't bother to take my word for that---we both have the man's telephone number. Would you like me to call him again and confirm what he told me?

So what are you saying to me now---that I threatened you with litigation and threatened to blackmail you? A bit dramatic on your part, don't you think there, Tom MacWood. What would I sue you for exactly---smearing the glorified name of George Crump? Would I sue you for your suggetion that Harry Colt had more to do with PVGC than I know he did? And what did I threaten to blackmail you about?

Frankly, it would be interesting to know both why those men in Merchantville NJ may've told you something and then told Wayne and I something virtually the opposite. And not just that---I really wonder if you ever bothered to mention to any of them that you were planning on possibly writing an article on George Crump.

If you didn't tell them that before you started asking them these kinds of question about Crump (or anyone else) you may think you're a good researcher/writer but you surely aren't an ethical one!  


 

[T_MacWood]

"Hold on a second Pal! You sure are off base. The reason I asked you about your A/C Movement essay is a few contributors on here mentioned to me they thought your essay was all fire and fury and that the conclusion of it just didn't connect at all---not only to historical reality but also in the way you actually wrote it. For some on here who know more about these eras than you seem to be giving them credit for simply think your conclusion was a pretty large stretch."

Is that right? Who were the few contributors who objected four years after I wrote it?

[TEPaul]

"When I made the decision to write an essay on Crump, I told those who assisted me at the very start--Ran, Paul, Geoff and Tommy--that I was only interested in exploring an area that had been neglected in my view, Crump and his life...I'd let others argue about who did what and who deserves credit for what."

Tom MacW:

And I told you on this website, and elsewhere, that I feel that was an excellent subject and perhaps one that surely has been neglected all these years. When one thinks of George Crump almost everyone thinks of PVGC in practically the next sentence.  

And I told you on here and elsewhere that I felt that article you wrote about Crump was an excellent article, did I not? Did I not tell you that Mayor Ott also thought it was an excellent article? I believe PVGC probably does as well.

TommyN has told me a number of times he thinks it was a big mistake on your part not telling me and discussing with me your plans and ideas for your article on Crump and TommyN will definitely not deny that on here or anywhere else.

But I can certainly understand why you may not have wanted to discuss the prospect of an article on Crump with me. Apparently you think or thought that me, and perhaps Wayne, probably PVGC and numerous other Philadelphians had something to protect, something to hide regarding Crump despite me telling you endlessly on here none of that is remotely the case.

It may even be true to say that TommyN, or GeoffShac or even Ran was under that impression. I certainly know Paul Turner feels that way because he has not hestiated to tell me that in person and on here for years now. If any or all of you think that though, I can only tell you again that your are wrong about that. But I do understand that despite anything I try to tell you in that vein you seem unwilling to accept for some reason.

I do admit in that unfortunate phone call on my part when I only asked you again how you could prove that Crump shot himself after you said the people in Merchantville told you that when they had told Wayne and I they never said that and did not know that---that I did tell you I suspected that you may be lying to me. I'm sorry I said that to you but at that point and certainly at this point I think you should be able to understand our position.

But if you're an honest man, I would not want to see you try to deny now that you did tell me that you felt that PVGC tried to glorify Crump at the expense of Colt's architectural contribution to that golf course because Crump not only died suddenly but because he actually shot himself. And I told you many times I felt that is ridiculous and of course I very much still do---and that is why I'm glad you never tried to make that point in your article although you certainly did make it to me and Wayne and on here. Again, I would very much not want to see you deny here and now that that is precisely what you told me (and probably Wayne too). That is the very thing I reacted to so strongly because I feel so strongly that is not true and never has been (other than that unfortunate mistake Finegan made many decades later).

So, let me ask you again---are you going to continue to state or imply that the reason we ask you questions on your A/C Movement article is because you wrote and article on George Crump?

[TEPaul]

"Is that right? Who were the few contributors who objected four years after I wrote it?"

Yes it is, and I never said they objected four years after you wrote it---that's the kind of thing you tend to say all by yourself which seems to become the truth to you. They may've always felt that way and just told me about it at some point. Whoever they are I'm sure they're more than capable of speaking for themselves on the subject.

[TEPaul]

But all of this is ancillary. What is your point here with this thread of yours about the "Pennsylvania School of golf architecture"?

[T_MacWood]

"TommyN has told me a number of times he thinks it was a big mistake on your part not telling me and discussing with me your plans and ideas for your article on Crump and TommyN will definitely not deny that on here or anywhere else.

But I can certainly understand why you may not have wanted to discuss the prospect of an article on Crump with me. Apparently you think or thought that me, and perhaps Wayne, probably PVGC and numerous other Philadelphians had something to protect, something to hide regarding Crump despite me telling you endlessly on here none of that is remotely the case."

Tommy was right, but unfortunately I was a victum of my own uncertainlity. When someone calls me at home and accuses me of being a liar, a fraud and creator of false information, I react in the usual way.

[T_MacWood]

"Yes it is, and I never said they objected four years after you wrote it---that's the kind of thing you tend to say all by yourself which seems to become the truth to you. They may've always felt that way and just told me about it at some point. Whoever they are I'm sure they're more than capable of speaking for themselves on the subject."

My bad. I don't really care who they are, if they object four years later or if they object off the record, I don't really care...it is their right.

[TEPaul]

"Tommy was right, but unfortunately I was a victum of my own uncertainlity. When someone calls me at home and accuses me of being a liar, a fraud and creator of false information, I react in the usual way."

Chronology is always an important thing to know and get correct in these matters, Tom.

The fact is I called you at home a good while after you'd decided to write an article on Crump and the circumstances of his death and a long while after you discussed it with those you mentioned. I never would've called you if this subject had not been discussed on this website a good long time before that phone call of mine to you. I'm sure TommyN or GeoffShac or Ran or Paul Turner would be more than willing to tell me when you began to discuss writing about this subject of Crump's death with them. My bet is those discussions with them preceded my phone call to you by a good deal of time.

And of course your calling Merchantville NJ preceded my phone call to you by many months. The superivsor of Merchantville NJ with whom you spoke confirmed that to me. if you didn't plan on writing something about Crump one wonders why you called Merchantville NJ in the first place.

That remark of yours I quoted on top of this post is just another good reason why I feel you never really tell all the facts which of course go into telling the truth.

I never try to beat around the bush on here, Tom, and I make no secret at all of the fact I feel you're a guy with an agenda who says what's only convenient to you and your points and premises on here. And I feel, as does Wayne (I know I can speak for him on this) and others on here that you do not really answer many of the questions some of us put to you on the things you say and claim on here in the name of golf architectural history and evolution. You often answer our questions with questions which are not answers, and those you don't want to deal with you're silent on.

I make no bones at all on here that there are a number of things I strongly disagree with you on that pertain to the way golf architecture's history should be looked at and recorded, the way golf architecture should be looked at and treated now.

That's what this website is all about. It's a give and take---it gets tough sometimes and frankly I think that's the beauty of it. I hope this site never takes the things you or anyone else says and claims automatically as fact and truth. There always needs to be exigesises---that's what's special on here with this discussion group.

I don't trust or believe some of the things you say and I'll always question them, and I expect the same from you or anyone else on here of the things I say and claim.

No one is ever going to convince me that the things they say and claim on here should be accepted simply because they keep saying, as you constantly do, they are great reserarchers or others haven't read the things they have and therefore shouldn't question them. To me that's bullshit, it's evasive and the sign of a poor, ill-equiped or defensive historian.

I'm always going to question the things you say if I have questions or don't agree with them. I'm always going to say I feel you're not telling the truth if that's what I feel. I wouldn't expect less of you or anyone else. How else are any of us expected to try to stay on the ball on here.

I have a lot of issues with the way you look at golf course architecture and you obviously often feel the same about me. That's the way it is and probably should be on here. Try not to take any of it personally. I sure don't, or try hard not to. We have to be ready, willing and able to defend the things we say or else admit they may be wrong.

Consensus building is not the point on here even if perhaps too many think it is.


 
 

[T_MacWood]

“Chronology is always an important thing to know and get correct in these matters, Tom. “

“The fact is I called you at home a good while after you'd decided to write an article on Crump and the circumstances of his death and a long while after you discussed it with those you mentioned. “

TE
Wrong. You called me at home in December, after I had sent you a private message, in which I was trying to make a point to you that the history of golf architecture is relatively unexplored. In my message I listed a number of little known facts…one of the facts was Crump’s suicide, which I had confirmed about six months prior by what I thought were reliable sources. I had no intention of writing an essay on Crump at that point.

It was weeks later--after your threatening phone call, and after those sources had recanted their words (after they'd spoken to you and Wayne), and after I’d uncovered the definitive evidence, and after others encouraged me--that I decided to write the essay

“I never try to beat around the bush on here, Tom, and I make no secret at all of the fact I feel you're a guy with an agenda who says what's only convenient to you and your points and premises on here. And I feel, as does Wayne (I know I can speak for him on this) and others on here that you do not really answer many of the questions some of us put to you on the things you say and claim on here in the name of golf architectural history and evolution. You often answer our questions with questions which are not answers, and those you don't want to deal with you're silent on.”

You are right I do have an agenda, my agenda is to discover as much as I can about the history of golf architecture, and then share what I’ve discovered with others….hopefully in a thoughtful and interesting way. You obviously don’t like or agree with my interpretations of what I find, and that’s fine…you will never please everyone, plus these things are always open to alternative interpretations.

“No one is ever going to convince me that the things they say and claim on here should be accepted simply because they keep saying, as you constantly do, they are great reserarchers or others haven't read the things they have and therefore shouldn't question them. To me that's bullshit, it's evasive and the sign of a poor, ill-equiped or defensive historian.”

If you believe I am an evasive, ill-equipped and defensive historian, that’s your prerogative. Defensive might be accurate, in that I’m quick to defend my findings (there is an 11 or 12 page thread floating around as good evidence)…ill-equipped and evasive, I don’t believe many would agree with that.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Wrong. You called me at home in December, after I had sent you a private message, in which I was trying to make a point to you that the history of golf architecture is relatively unexplored. In my message I listed a number of little known facts…one of the facts was Crump’s suicide, which I had confirmed about six months prior by what I thought were reliable sources. I had no intention of writing an essay on Crump at that point."

Tom MacWood:

My recollection is I called you in January. If it seems important to confirm I do have all my IM's with you on this site and my emails and my phone records--I'm a bit of a squirrel that way and I'm glad at times like this I am   . I'll also check with those you mentioned as to when you first discussed with them about writing on this subject.

If you are researching information of the type you were on the circumstances of Crump's death with the type of people you spoke with in Merchantville NJ you do owe them the courtesy of informing them that you may plan to use in writing what they may be about to discuss with you. This you ethically need to do before you begin discussing subjects like this with them. But if you were not aware of that it certainly would not surprise me.

From speaking with them it does not appear you did that, and, as I mentioned, in the collection of information and the use of it in writing failing to do that is felt to be unethical---which I do agree with. That's precisely why I gave that Merchantville NJ supervisor your phone #. He said if you planned on writing about the subject in any way using inflormation you got from him he did expect the courtesy of hearing from you about it before you used any information from him.

Apparently what you did is try to swear a few people to secrecy about this including me and the information you gave me concerning your conversation with that supervisor in Merchantville. I found that approach, particularly as it was all after the fact, pretty comical!

When I spoke to him myself and then took you to task for what I believed he did not tell you---you then acted as if it was me who was out to destroy his reputation (I do have that on your IMs of this website). Perhaps it does not even occur to you even at this point but reacting that way is without question a real bush-league move and a total failure to understand who's responsibility it really is with how to deal with information such as that.

You would do well in the futue to remember the advice of the English king;

"Keep your own counsel, and if your cap hears your counsel, remove your cap and cast it into the fire."  

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
Sam Heebner was the long time president of the GAP (during the period in question) and involved in the design of Whitemarsh Valley with Thomas (which is arguably the first top notch course in Philly)."

As I wrote on the Arts and Crafts thread:

The Feb 1909 American Golfer wrote of Heebner as "unselfishly devoting his energies in the development of the new White Marsh Country Club, of Philadelphia."  The June 1915 American Golfer wrote of Heebner as "an indefatigable worker during these construction days and Sunnybrook must be under great obligations to him."  Jim Finegan doesn't mention Heebner in any architectural capacity in his excellent history of Philadelphia golf.

Please explain to me how you determined that Heebner merits consideration in a fraternity of golf architects.  What was his architectural involvement at Whitemarsh Valley, or Sunnybrook for that matter?

[Willie_Dow]

There is no mention of Sam Heebner in "The Architects of Golf" and the early name for Whitemarsh Valley CC was Mount Airy Country Club.

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

This seems to be an example of Tom MacWood making a specious architectural attribution.  Finegan makes no mention of anything  to do with architecture and Heebner in his centennial GAP book.  Look forward to seeing you soon.

Best,
Wayne

[T_MacWood]

“My recollection is I called you in January. If it seems important to confirm I do have all my IM's with you on this site and my emails and my phone records--I'm a bit of a squirrel that way and I'm glad at times like this I am   . I'll also check with those you mentioned as to when you first discussed with them about writing on this subject. “

TE

Your recollection is off.

“If you are researching information of the type you were on the circumstances of Crump's death with the type of people you spoke with in Merchantville NJ you do owe them the courtesy of informing them that you may plan to use in writing what they may be about to discuss with you. This you ethically need to do before you begin discussing subjects like this with them. But if you were not aware of that it certainly would not surprise me. “

I had absolutely no plan of writing anything on Crump when I spoke to the folks in Merchantville last spring. I only decided to write the essay after I found the definitive proof (and after weeks of yours and Wayne’s never ending chirping), at the point obviously I didn’t need them.

I think the fact that they denied speaking to me and recanted what they told me, is all we need to know about how those gents viewed the information, and if they preferred the information be handled discretely. I get the impression those poor fellows didn't see yours and Waynes inquirees and specualtion that I was planning on using them as sources as comical. I warned you and Wayne that a bull-in-the-china-shop method would render no information--and I was right.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne and Bill
Thomas's 'Golf Architecture in America' notes Heebner's role. You can also find him in Shackelford's 'The Captain' as well. He was a very prominant man in Philadelphia golf circles.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, I just read Thomas's acknowledgement of Heebner on pgs 121 and 123 of GAIA.  Thomas sure learned and practiced his lessons well!  

Tom,

What is the point of extending this "school" in all directions? There were a lot of men involved in the evolution of golf in Philadelphia and elsewhere.  The men most cited are not cheating others out of any glory.  Take a break from this effort of yours.  A long list of men instrumental in early golf development in Philadelphia can be created.  Your list is longer than mine.  So what?  I don't have list envy.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Its a combination of a desire for historic accuracy, curiosity in how you determined who belonged and who didn't, and frankly a little of me giving you and TE a little of your own medicine.

I agree its not the most important issue, sorry if I went overboard. I agree with TE, if Flynn read our debate about the Philadelphia School...he'd probably say "what the hell is the Philadelphia School?!"

[wsmorrison]

Agreed, at last Tommy Mac.  And thanks, a multitude of thanks, for inspiring Tom to earnestly start writing the book.  Whatever it takes, right ?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()