David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Wonderful find by Tom Macwood! is there anything in the article that mentions that Wilson was making sketches as it does Macdonald's? Or is that the sole mention of Wilson's trip?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Oh..."gotcha".   I see.

I'm guessing Tom just found that last evening while cleaning out the attic?

Does the article say that this was Wilson's first visit, or is that being saved for later effect, because I didn't read that anywhere? 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I would ask if there are any other critical or relevant pieces of evidence that you and Tom have that we should know about before asking us to participate in a good faith critical analyisis of your piece?

Or am I missing the point?

You asked me and others to not listen to what we had heard about your motives.  I sent you a private email stating that I was hoping to put that behind us and would disregard that rumor talk as overblown and would proceed trusting that you were on the up and up.

Fool me once...

[TEPaul]

As far as I'm concerned that little article from a British magazine in May 1912 is probably the single most important bit of information I've ever seen via GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and from outside this area in all the years of threads on here about Merion G.C.

What does it actually "prove" that might require a correction or reinterpretation in the Merion history books that we generally use or the club and its members may generally refer to today (that would be the two edtions of Desmond Tolhurst's history on Merion, the first one in 1989 and the second one in 2005)?

I'll try to explain in the next post or so what my opinion on that is. It would be most interesting to interview Desmond Tolhurst to determine the reasons for some of the minor changes in the relevent sections of his two editions that would pertain to this latest revelation but unfortunately I hear Tolhurst is dead.

[TEPaul]

As far as the two Tolhurst Merion history books are concerned this important bit of information would lay to rest this particular part from Tolhurst's 1989 book and would obviously require that this part be rewritten somehow or just removed from the Merion history book:

"Incidentally the date work started on the new course lays to rest an oft-told, rather romantic story that Wilson, on his return from Britain, miraculously avoided a planned sailing home on the pride of the White Star line, the S.S. Titanic. The liner struck an iceberg and sank on the night of April 14-15th, 1912. Obviously, if work started on the course in the spring of 1911, Wilson was already safely home in the United States before the ill-fated ship ever set out on its maiden voyage."
Desmond Tolhurst, "Golf at Merion", 1989

Oddly, in Tolhurst's next edition of "Golf at Merion", 2005 the above paragraph has been completely removed from the book.

I have absolutely no idea why Tolhurst did that. Did he have some documentary material on Merion that we've never been aware of? That's hard to say and now it's certainly too late to ask him.

In my opinion, this bit of information from a British magazine in 1912 answers and completely proves one thing none of us have ever known before and that is the reason for Wilson's trip abroad for something less than two months in 1912.

But it is also going to seriously raise at least one other question about another piece of information that is not only in both Tolhurst histories but has remained around the history of Merion in some other sources for seemingly many years. Of course, for how many years may now become the real question.

That is the mention that Wilson, when he went abroad to study architecture for Merion, spent 'about seven' months abroad.

I think I already posted my speculation on this on another post on Merion on here a while ago but to reiterate it, and ASSUMING the 1912 trip was the only one Wilson ever made abroad to study architecture for Merion, my speculation is that somewhere along the line in translation on information, probably verbally, a trip of "several" months got mistranslated into "seven" months.

But, obviously, that is just a guess.

[TEPaul]

This might both interest and amuse some GOLFCLUBATLASERS but yesterday some of us spent the day at Merion with Gil Hanse, his partner Jim Wagner, and Castle Stuart's Mark Parsinen, Fraser Cromarty, Stuart McColm and Paul Olsen. Wayne hosted a couple of groups for golf that included Merion's Bill Dow and the green chairman.

(Later at a really fine dinner at Gil Hanse's (including perhaps the finest all around conversation amongst a group of really good people on golf architecture I've ever been part of) the participants included wonderful golf writer Jim Finegan and Jeff Silverman (contributor to SI) and Merion former head pro and Hanse Co. partner and perhaps the greastest expert on various eras of Merion, Bill Kittleman).

Mark Parsinen and I just walked around the entire course sort of following next to the groups (and apparently talking so intensely that we may've gotten in the way of another group behind us. Sorry about that! ).

When we arrived at the 17th tee Merion's super Matt Shaeffer was there with Merion East's super (I think Scott Boardman (sorry if I got that name wrong, I'm not great on names and I just met him yesterday. ; )).

Anyway, the group behind ours came up on the 17th tee and one of Merion's members said to me: "Did you happen to notice that old Macdonald material laying in the grass?"

Obviously, some of Merion's members and Merion are sort of following all this although it's complex and detailed enough that they may not understand the underlying meaning of it.

I think I might've discussed this with about 3-4 people at Merion yesterday and I explained to them that the meaning, and conclusion of David Moriarty's piece is that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East (with possibly some vestiges of routing or design ideas from the GCGC professional in 1910, one H.H. Barker).

In each case there was silence, followed by some knitted brows and perhaps followed by something like a Hmmmmm?!

Although not a one of them actually responded, my sense was that if it could be actually proved (and obviously that would require a routing map and perhaps hole designs that are as Merion was originally routed and built) that the great C.B. Macdonald routed and designed the original iteration of Merion East that they would probably very much enjoy reinterpreting the architectural history of Merion East and adding to its architetural attribution the "Father of American Golf Architecture", and the "Evanglelist of Golf", one Charles Blair Macdonald (and perhaps his sidekick son-in-law Henry J. Whigam?)!   

Even if the curmudgeonly old coot apparently never uttered a word or wrote a word about what he did for Merion, perhaps now this would please him and he will finally get the credit for what he did for Merion that he has always truly deserved.

But to do that, and get Merion to legitimately feel the need to reinterpret and rewrite their early architectural history, some physical evidence of what Macdonald/Whigam, and perhaps H.H. Barker actually did do will need to be produced.

Will David Moriarty produce that next in his Part 2 of his piece "The Missing Faces of Merion"?

I, for one, actually hope so!

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I don't believe Tolhurst had anything at all to do with the 2005 revision of his Golf at Merion book.  I believe it was updated in-house.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Thanks for that and actually that's good news because if it was redone in-house that should mean we can find someone who may shed some light on why that mention of the Titanic was removed in the 2005 Merion Tolhurst history book.

This is a sort of caption piece to Chapter Two I'd also like to try to check out the derivation of with hopefully some historical material:

"In 1909, the golfers at the Merion Cricket Club formed the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association to examine the problem presented by the Haskell ball, namely that it has made their course obsolete. The moving spirits of this organization were Rodman E. Griscom, Charlton Yarnall, Robert Lesley, Walter Stephenson, Alan Wilson and his younger brother, Hugh."


My experience and my sense is history writers like Tolhurst tend not to just make remarks like that up out of the clear blue sky. There has to be, or must have been, some material around Merion when he wrote his history book in 1989 that in some way supports or reflects that statement.

[BCrosby]

David has established that there were a several people involved in the routing and design of Merion East. More people than I had thought.

There were also a large number of eye witnesses to the proceedings, yet none assigned design credit to anyone in particular. Architectural attributions can be hard, but they aren't that hard.

I think David missed the most intriguing question. The interesting historical question for me is not whether or not MacD was involved. Clearly he was. But so were several other people. Singling MacD out from among these other people for special design credit goes beyond the evidence, however.

The more interesting question for me is why the historical record is so ambiguous. A simple declaratory sentence by someone on the ground at the time would have sufficed. 

That didn't happen. Why not? What was going on? It was a high profile project with articulate participants all more than eager to express their views in public on a range of topics.

I know of no other highly ranked US course where the topic of design credit was so carefully avoided in the historical record. That is the oddity most in need of explanation and the most interesting historical question.

All of which suggests to me that what was going on at Merion was probably a very complicated stew involving a lot of different people. So much so that even the bumptious MacD was not inclined to claim credit for himself on the record.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Not that this really interesting latest find conclusively proves that Wilson could not have been over there earlier, but actually, now that I've had some time to think about this interesting find that really does prove to me that Hugh Wilson was studying architecture in Scotland and England between March and May of 1912, about 5-6 months BEFORE Merion East even opened for play (Sept, 14, 1912) I have to ask myself if the subject of this little blurb in an English golf magazine might have additional meaning.

In other words, it mentions "American links designer Hugh G. Wilson" as being over there going over ideas for holes. The fact that Wilson even gets enough recognition at that time to rate a blurb in an English golf magazine seems to indicate he wasn't the unknown total novice some on here claim he was. Or might an additional meaning be that Macdonald was setting up and promoting Wilson over there by writing a letter to a British golf magazine and making plans available? Could a purpose of Macdonald's be to continue to promote his "template" design modus operandi over here in America via another great course---ie Merion East?

But the rest of the article that mentions a letter from Macdonald that discusses plans for holes that will appear in this magazine is what really interests me.

What plans was both Macdonald and the magazine reporter talking about? Were they plans for the holes of Merion East or the plans for the holes of NGLA or perhaps plans for the adaptations of template holes that Macdonald brought back with him in 1906?

If they were plans for the holes of Merion East that had already been built between the spring of 1911 and Sept 1911 at which point the course went into a year long grow-in phase this could get really interesting as to who was responsible for them and perhaps the original routing and hole designs of Merion East.

If they were plans for the holes of Merion East that appear to match the holes in the routing of Merion East and they clearly show they were conceived and developed by Macdonald himself, my advice would be that Merion G.C. should get ready to reinterpret who really did do the routing and hole designs of what we call the first phase (1912-1916) of Merion East.

I would say if the plans mentioned in this article that are to later appear in this magazine show they really were Macdonald's and the holes match the holes of that early phase of Merion and its routing (which was somewhat altered beginning in 1916 and later)  I would recommend that Merion East give "The Father of American Golf Architecture" and "The Evangelist of Golf", that curmudgeonly coot, CHARLES "FREAKIN" BLAIR MACDONALD CO-EQUAL DESIGN ATTRIBUTION for the first phase of MERION EAST with HUGH I. (or G. or D. or whatever the hell his middle initial really was) WILSON!

Lastly, I, for one, am really excited to see what these plans are and if they're on Merion East and even if it was Macdonald that conceived of them and developed them and perhaps sent them to England to promote Wilson and Merion East as the next great step in Macdonald's template hole model and modus for excellence in American golf architecture.

However, if we find out that those plans and that blurb has been available to those contributing to this piece, "The Missing Faces of Merion" for some time, and all of this is just being "staged in" in this manner basically for the purpose of embarrassing Merion or some of us here, well then, I will still be very glad for this new truly interesting and important information on the course's architectural history but I will definitely have a whole lot less respect for the people who are doing it that way than I do right now for some of the various methods and innuendos and remarks they have already made about us here, some of our courses and architects and basically our town. And if Ran Morrissett happens to have been aware of this kind of method designed to embarrass us for some time then that includes him too and his GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

I think a whole lot of people on here would agree with me on that and let's just hope I'm only being pessimistic here and that it will turn out to be nothing at all like that!   

[RJ_Daley]

I would say if the plans mentioned in this article that are to later appear in this magazine show they really were Macdonald's and the holes match the holes of that early phase of Merion and its routing (which was somewhat altered beginning in 1916 and later)  I would recommend that Merion East give "The Father of American Golf Architecture" and "The Evangelist of Golf", that curmudgeonly coot, CHARLES "FREAKIN" BLAIR MACDONALD CO-EQUAL DESIGN ATTRIBUTION for the first phase of MERION EAST with HUGH I. (or G. or D. or whatever the hell his middle initial really was) WILSON!

Well, maybe.  Maybe the official record or club history 'might' be footnoted to reflect CB's hand in the effort.  But, why make that big of a deal out of it, WHEN THE PLAYERS IN THEIR OWN TIME DID NOT!!!

Why has it been so hard to embrace or accept the notion (quite obvious to my meager mental capabilities) that the Merion GC was a collaboration.  Why can't we just respect how the gentlemen in their own times CHOSE to tell the story.  CB as is legendary, was no wilting violet, and if he felt slighted as to any possible contribution or significant contribution of an entire routing and bones of a golf course design, all seem in consensus that he would have darn well piped up, as would his eulogist and his kin, if it were all that important to him or them.  But, they Whigham only glossed over CBs possible involvement in that eulogy. 

Why can't folks accept that in their time, wealthy and powerful men had a recreational passion to create their new and most modern course to meet the coming years competitions with the new ball of more distance and such, along with more players taking up the game all the time, fostering greater talented competition, so they set out to collaboratively create this new great course.  That sentiment was all the rage then among these upper society groups that were turning to golf.  That was their social and pass-time fun, creating new exclusive golf clubs to associate with their peers and show off their great new golf courses. 

So, with the likes of so many well-to-do Philadelphians, what is so hard to understand that they could and did get the advice and maybe more work on original routing and design from the one who was considered the best of his day; CB, and also had all these well-to-do gentlemen on these various committees, (real estate acquisition, planning and outreach to CB and others, financing and membership, and construction committees)  Just as if a group of well-to-do gentlemen would do today if they had a collaborative effort underway to create a top club in this day and age; gentlemen would not bicker about credit in a true collaboration. 

So, being both gentlemen, and well-to-do, and in context of the social decorum of the times, why can't all of you debaters just go with the notion that they as gentlemen in their own times CHOSE to parcel out the attribution or credit with the majority of the credit to their 'favorite son' HIW.  CB was good with that, as were all the other collaborators who had something integral to do with the overall project, be it financing, land acquistion, or even some guy you don't even know about today having a brilliant on-the-fly idea of designing a particular hole that the rest all loved and accepted, yet neglected to mention was Joe Blow's original idea.

All the above speculation is plausible, and as likely or more so than this futile effort to assign one specific guy like HIW, or CB or anyone else to the ultimate credit for the project. 

To sum up my own feelings, it would be the right thing to do, to leave the history of Merion to be told as THEY IN THEIR OWN TIME CHOSE TO RECOUNT IT, and to footnote new facts of CB or other's participation as points of discovery as to the progression of the collaboration. 

[JESII]

TEP,

I am interested in you position in view of that piece from the British Golfer...mainly because the magazine refers to him as "An American Designer" as the title of the passage.

I too am curious to see what was included in that issue of the magazine and others in close time frame. To me, the fact that this chapter refers to Wilson as a designer himself sort of lends credibility to his accomplishments to date in May 1912...the fact that so much of that passage discusses CBM and his NGLA studies and plans without directly connecting the two is also noteworthy...

[RJ_Daley]

How in the world could HIW identify himself as a "designer" of golf courses at that time?  He might have been a designer of golf courses on a bar napkin, as many of us are, but he didn't actually 'design' any at that point, other than his involvement to date with the project.  Let's leave some room here for journalistic license.  Maybe the reporter assumed since HIW was associated with CBs earlier efforts to intend to study links of the old sod, that the act of coming over and doing so, automatically in the reporter's mind made HIW a GCA.   

[JESII]

RJ,

HIW did not, in this piece, identify himself as a designer. The passage title does that.

Journalistic license? Sure, no argument, but if he had not been instrumental at Merion yet why was his visit worthy of a passage in the British Golfer?

[RJ_Daley]

JES, because he was a notable am golfer, who just happened to come from high society. 

[Phil_the_Author]

RJ,

You observed, "Well, maybe.  Maybe the official record or club history 'might' be footnoted to reflect CB's hand in the effort.  But, why make that big of a deal out of it, WHEN THE PLAYERS IN THEIR OWN TIME DID NOT!!!"

I don't know if I can agree with that conclusion. In the 30's Tilly wrote of how Hugh Wilson had been "forgotten" as the man who designed Merion. The full implication of that is that a number of people at merion and elsewhere were giving design credit to others and doing so just 20 years after it's creation.

Imagine 20 years from now a major personage in golf writing that it is such a shame to see how all seem to have forgotten that Tom Doak designed Old Macdonald? The only way that could happen would be by others claiming it as theirs. So to back in the day with merion then.

If others were laying claim to the point where Tilly felt obliged to make a statement in a national publication I would certainly think that it had become a bone of contention on at least a regional, if not national level.

[RJ_Daley]

Phil, I don't see that as a reason Tillie would make the comment at all.  I see Tillie saying that more so in context with the upgrades and tweaking that was done to Merion in the second period of time, the time frame of Flynn and all the work Wayne and Tom are focused on.  I think Tillie was just being 'respectful' of HIWs memory, already some 20 years on. 

And, I think that part of all the original collaborator's willingness to deflect a "lion's share" of credit to HIW was their recognition that HIW was the one that seemed to put all his heart and soul into the project, including the well chronicled efforts of ongoing correspondence with the Oakely about the agronomy.  I think they all knew it was a gentlemanly collaboration, but as it went on, they all recognised that HIW was giving it his dedication to a measure greater than the rest, and so they deflected; and Tillie's remarks are also in that vane. 

[TEPaul]

"Well, maybe.  Maybe the official record or club history 'might' be footnoted to reflect CB's hand in the effort.  But, why make that big of a deal out of it, WHEN THE PLAYERS IN THEIR OWN TIME DID NOT!!!"


RJ:

If that's the way this all plays out in the end, then, in my opinion, that would TRULY be one of the most fascinating questions and subjects that this website could EVER consider and deal with.

Among, other things, it would mean that we really would need to consider if they looked at the creation of architecture vastly different than we do today when we assign architectural attribution. In other words, is it actually conceivable that those clearly intelligent men from that time somehow did not understand the significance and importance of a conceived routing and holes designs and all that really concerned them was how it was actually built and who did that or even more amassing still, how to actually grow decent grass on it.

Or could it have possibly have been that they somehow actually intended a few years later to basically depart from both Macdonald and his style and modus operandi of template holes and also essentially REJECT him by purposefully removing mention of the credit he really did deserve?

Frankly, I can hardly wait to see how this all plays out in the end!  

[DMoriarty]

Bob,  The scope of this paper was very narrowly defined and intentional so.  Given the history and contentiousness of these issues I am glad I gave them their own forum.  It would be a mistake to assume that I haven't considered the other questions, including the very one you are asking.   I was hoping we could address the problems with the essay first.  Many have been alluded but few detailed.  

The article makes no other mention of Wilson.

Note that Wilson' visit was mentioned in the context of a recent letter from fbm

[JESII]

And so they call him the designer of a course CBM had designed in the same passage they talk about CBM designing NGLA?

If I were CBM, I would be pissed!

[RJ_Daley]

Well Tom, I hope you can get to see it all play out, but I am very skeptical that you ever will see it all play out, factually.  I think all the facts have mostly all evaporated in the vapors of time.

But, for our purposes, I think it is wise to try to evaluate the project as you have described or are toying with the realizations above:

Among, other things, it would mean that we really would need to consider if they looked at the creation of architecture vastly different than we do today when we assign architectural attribution. In other words, is it actually conceivable that those clearly intelligent men from that time somehow did not understand the significance and importance of a conceived routing and holes designs and all that really concerned them was how it was actually built and who did that or even more amassing still, how to actually grow decent grass on it.

Or could it have possibly have been that they somehow actually intended a few years later to basically depart from both Macdonald and his style and modus operandi of template holes and also essentially REJECT him by purposefully removing mention of the credit he really did deserve?

Reject MacD's influence or styling is a bit strong.  Embrace an alternate creation theory that more evolves into the realities of how the course and design were tweaked by Flynn and all the subsequent contributions, perhaps more than rejection.  

But, for us to imagine the PROCESS that those gentlemen followed, right down to imagining how they approached the planning and everday efforts would be helpful.  For instance:

Is it me not realizing all you gents have in deed stopped to consider all the major contributors to Merion's efforts as a daily on-going project, or have you all not considered it?  What was a typical week for HIW or Lloyd or those other fellows during the time when they "knew" they were getting the specific parcel of land, and when and after they had Barker, CB and Whiggy in for a walk-around?  They presumable had either a topo, or fairly well surveyed map.  Don't you think about 4 nights a week, Mrs HIW asked Hugh, "honey what are you doing tonight"  and Hugh would say, "oh - going down to the club with the guys, we are going to play checkers for a while, then roll out the maps and plan the course... maybe have a few drinks, play some cards, and don't wait up for me, I'll be home late".  

It is just like any other manly collaborative hobby effort and labor of love.  It was a PROCESS, full of late night drinks and plans, and then re-consulting with CB, going over to the old sod to recheck plans and ideas, even if they were to be added later, etc.  

All the guys eventually came to realise that HIW was really getting invested most heavily in it, with all the agronomy studies to boot.  So, he was their favorite Son and the deflected the "lion's share" of credit to him, from all those late nights at the club, planning, going over ideas, etc.  And, CB was good with that too, if he played a bigger part, because he too realised HIW had the most heart in it.  

Now, as soon as I find CB's missing diary and reflections to prove that, I'll post the evidence and let you know for sure...  

[TEPaul]

"Well, maybe.  Maybe the official record or club history 'might' be footnoted to reflect CB's hand in the effort.  But, why make that big of a deal out of it, WHEN THE PLAYERS IN THEIR OWN TIME DID NOT!!!"


RJ:

If that's the way this all plays out in the end, then, in my opinion, that would TRULY be one of the most fascinating questions and subjects that this website could EVER consider and deal with.

Among, other things, it would mean that we really would need to consider if they looked at the creation of architecture vastly different than we do today when we assign architectural attribution. In other words, is it actually conceivable that those clearly intelligent men from that early time in American architecture AND early time of GOLF in America somehow did not understand the significance and importance of a conceived routing and hole designs and all that really concerned them was how it was actually built and who did that or even more amazing still, how to actually grow decent grass on it.

Or could it have possibly been that they somehow actually intended a few years later to basically depart from both Macdonald and his style and modus operandi of template holes and to basically and purposefully go in a new stylistic direction perhaps almost invented by Wilson and Flynn and Merion and also essentially REJECT Macdonald by purposefully removing mention in their reports and their histories (which did come five to fifteen years later) the credit he really did deserve?

As I've said on this website many times in the past, and I seem to be about the only one saying it, but it has been my distinct feeling that perhaps for a variety of reasons both through the teens and into the 1920s and for the remainder of his life Charles Blair Macdonald seemed to become increasingly disallusioned and angry and perhaps seriously depressed over many of the things to do with the way golf and architecture were going in America.

I mentioned a few years ago that if this was the case, I think the mention in his own book in 1928 cites perhaps the first time this occured to him---when incoming USGA President Robertson said in his 1901 acceptance speech of the USGA presidency, "Nothing remains long in America without being Americanized. What I would like to see is "American golf". I think it is very clear to see from the way Macdonald wrote about that event and remark, that would be the first stake that was essentially driven through his heart and through his dream to bring to America the game and the rules and the ethos and the type of administrative organization and the spirit of the game he loved so much and knew so well from St. Andrews!! That was the way he definitely looked at it, it's very clear to see and of course the fact that he would BE the ONE to BRING IT and that he would be essentially the representation of not just golf architecture but most everything to do with American golf. I think the fact that Macdonald never did become the president of the USGA when early on there just could not have been a more likely and appropriate candidate to be exactly that----The entire representation of what golf should be over here both then and into the future.

Could something surrounding Merion have been some of the progression of that? Personally, at this point, I doubt it (because Wilson seemed to be not at all unfriendly towards him for the rest of his life--Wilson died at 45 in 1925) but we might be about to find out! 

Frankly, I can hardly wait to see how this all plays out in the end!   

[RJ_Daley]

While I never laid eyes on it, it is fairly obvious that Merion didn't evolve as one might normally expect a true CB course to evolve, design wise, or maintenance meld wise, etc.  It is surely an alternate evolution of a golf course design tradition.  So, a departure from emphasis that CB "may" have had a more influential hand in the creation, is normally abandoned in favor of how the design actually evolved, not how it could have evolved. 

I'd be very surprised if CB was stewing mad in any departure from his influence, and he probably realised they were going a different way.  But, if someone has words of CB that reflect a dismay of the way the Merion history became the official word, I'm all ears...

[TEPaul]

"But, if someone has words of CB that reflect a dismay of the way the Merion history became the official word, I'm all ears..."

RJ:

Oh, don't worry, we sure do have some of that too. But it wasn't just at or over Merion, it seemed to be directed at most everyone. In the early 1920s we do have some mention in a letter from Piper to Wilson that Charlie was pretty much pissed at everyone.

Wilson sort of jokingly asked Piper if Macdonald tried to bite his head of when he visited NGLA and Piper wrote back jokingly that Charlie didn't exactly try to bite his head off but he did tell him he thought everyone was "a bunch of idiots!"   

[TEPaul]

"And so they call him the designer of a course CBM had designed in the same passage they talk about CBM designing NGLA?
If I were CBM, I would be pissed!"


Sully:

You know what that means, don't you?

It means you are actually more curmudgeonly than Charlie ever was. I've always suspected that about you! 

Do you think at your young age that everyone is a bunch of idiots like Charlie did in the early 1920s?