...
You want absolute proof in order for me to draw any conclusions at all. That is impossible, especially with historical research. Often we must go with the best inference the facts give us.
...
STILL WAITING ON HOW WE ALL KNOW THAT LLOYD WAS INVOLVED IN SUMMER 1909. Your not holding out on us are you Mike?
A couple of things. First, If you read the rest of my response, you know that many of my conclusions are not inferential but necessary given the facts as we know them.
Second, Mike is not inferring from known facts, but rather trying to distort the facts to fit the conclusion he wants. All this business (to put it politely) about two trips is a good example. The entire notion was only invented because the real trip no longer fits with their story. But the problem is, the made-up earlier trip has to be really early, so he's got to create facts that indicate that Merion was involved before they were really involved. He even pushed back Merion's entire history by a year so that some HD Wilson's trip with his wife would seem to be relevant, claiming that Wilson went to NGLA in 1909, the year before he inspected the property. Absolutely absurd, and would be laughably so, if this this kind of garbage wasnt wasting so much of my time.
That is what he is doing with Lloyd's involvement. He figures he has got to involve Merion earlier than Wilson's trip, so he pretends that we all should know Lloyd was running HDC as early as Summer 1909. I dont know that and I am pretty familiar with the documents, including the article he believes told him this. As to whether Lloyd is involved or not, I dont care and it doesnt matter.
What I object to is this repeated making up of facts and pretending they are solid and with support when they are far from solid or with support.
___________________________________
Phillip, I don’t have a copy of the Barker routing, If I had it I assure you it would have been in the article.
As for the meaning of the term “lay out” see Neil’s answer, as that is exactly what I was getting at.
____________________________
Patrick -
It's nice to see a man with an assured self-regard, and a healthy perspective on himself
You write: "Wilson himself acknowledges CBM's contribution vis a vis their meeting"
Yes. Indeed he did. I think that's long been a part of Merion's historical record.
Sorry, Peter but that is just not the case. Merion's version of the story was that Hugh I. Wilson went to CBM in preparation of his overseas trip. In fact, some posting on this thread referred to it as helping Hugh Wilson with his itinerary. So it has NOT been part of Merion's historical record, even among those here who have looked into Merion in detail.
I believe everyone at the time credited Macdonald with a great deal of valuable advice, and recorded that fact. But what's not recorded anywhere, as far as I can tell, is the belief by anyone at the time that Macdonald designed (or conceived of) Merion.
That is, the same people who credited Macdonald with advising the Committee headed by H Wilson credited the Committee with building Merion. Were they being honest and forthright in one instance but not in the other?
No one who was actually there credited Hugh I Wilson, either. No one. They just always talk around the issue. The only involved party who spoke to the issue was Whigham, and he did credit Macdonald for the design.
I can't seem to get past that question, nor am I too impressed by the fact the Mr. Barker looked at a property for a while and suggested a routing that, as far as I can tell, wasn't in the end used, in whole or in part.
How on earth can you tell that it wasn't in the end used? I surely cannot tell this. There is much more reason to believe that Barker's routing was used over Wilson's, BECAUSE WILSON DID NOT DO A ROUTING, BUT BEGAN ON THE PROJECT AFTER THE ROUTING WAS DONE.
________________________________________
Mike Cirba wrote:
David,
Since you are being so frank, I have to say that this is the type of thing that I find so frustrating about trying to have a discussion with you.
In answer to another question, you provide a piece of your primary source that talks about HH Barker delivering a "report", and I ask the obvious question...did Barker deliver a report or routing, yet your response to me is glib, and begs the next question, which is simply, "How are we supposed to glean from the source document that Barker delivered a routing?"
My essay directly answered your question.
In the brief time since your White Paper was published here, and discussion began, everyone was suddenly surprised to see a magazine article suddenly appear from Tom MacWood that by any account would seem to be a remarkable, suspiciously timely "find". Tom has been digging into this stuff for years and years...are we to believe this suddenly turned up?
I don’t care what you believe Mike. I told you what happened. Yet you continue to imply that Tom MacWood and I are liars who have been manipulating the record and hiding information. Then you have the audacity to say that you don’t understand how you are being insulting. You are a piece of work Mike.
Given the history here, David, I'm not sure how that's insulting. It's honest and direct, yes, but it's not meant to be anything but a very frank question.
The history here is exactly what makes it so insulting. It is even more insulting for you to feign that you do not know what I am talking about while continuing to insult me in the very same thread.
Since my return you have maligned my character, integrity, and motives on an almost daily basis both on this website and off. You have callously ridiculed my intentions, and repeatedly called me a charlatan and an asshole. Last week you made the bizarre and nonsensical accusation that Tom MacWood and I have long had the article I recently posted, and were laying in wait as part of some secret plot to embarrass you. In an act of overwhelming hubris or stupidity, you suggest this again in the very same post where you innocently wonder why I am insulted.
I've repeatedly explained to you on and off the board that you have it wrong, that there is no plot, and that I am not sandbagging with the sources, but your response has been more scoff and scorn, and you have refused to put the matter the matter behind us.
What most galls me is that you and your supposed secret source are too cowardly to actually let me address the scurrilous gossip that you have so freely spread over the website and off in private messages and conversations. What kind of a spineless punk continously spreads snarky gossip while refusing to even give the wronged party a chance to defend himself? Your kind, I guess.
If you want to attack my character and spread childish gossip about about me, Tom MacWood, or anyone else, then you ought to be willing to back it up with facts. Otherwise keep your paranoid delusions to yourself.
The 1880 United States Census says that the Hugh Wilson we know is "Hugh D. Wilson".
You can't accept one clearly erroneous manifest as factual and throw out others that have no obvious errors when they don't suit David's interpretations of events. It is what it is, and the fact is that any supposed "legal document" that we're supposed to revise our historical view of an important timeline is laughable when you think about the fact that the name "H D Wilson" was perimissable at all.
Yet, David uses such evidence as one of the cornerstone foundations of his case.
My essay doesn't even need the manifest.
Hugh Wilson tells us when he went abroad to study. After the NGLA trip. All you have to do is place the NGLA trip in the context of events and the entire episode starts to make sense. The manifest, the letters to Piper/Oakley, the recent article, all they do is help convince those of you who for some strange reason refuse to take Hugh I Wilson at his word. Of course a few will never be convinced no matter what the evidence.
But lets assume for argument that, after you've loved and left many-a-H.Wilson, you have finally found the H Wilson who is our H I Wilson. Of course he isnt, but lets humor you and pretend he is. SO WHAT. It has nothing to do with this. Hugh Wilson told us where he learned about the great holes -- NGLA -- and he told us when he went abroad to study -- after NGLA. This is true whether he took one previous trips or one hundred. The fact that you refuse to believe Hugh I Wilson is pretty ironic, dont you think? Of course you dont.