"TE
Interesting logic - Barker's routing is missing from the records, therefore we must conclude Merion did not consider it seriously or must not have used it. On the other hand you have knowledge of another routing from April 1911 which was apparenrtly attached to letter to the board, of course this one is missing too, not part of the records either. Have you ever heard the saying whats good for the goose is good for the gander? We have no idea if they are the same routing or not."
WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY ARE THE SAME ROUTING OR NOT??
You're just kidding me again, right?
Who is "WE"? Maybe it's you and David Moriarty but it isn't me or Wayne Morrison or Merion.
Honest to God, Tom MacWood, you really do know how to beat a dead horse endlessly, don't you?
That might be the case if there was absolutely nothing else in the Merion record about course designs and who did them for Merion East. But that is not the case. There is plenty in the Merion record (committee and board meeting minutes). And that is beginning over half a year AFTER Barker's letter to Connell was submitted to MCC AND a over half a year AFTER Barker's name was never mentioned again and never would be mentioned again in any single context to do with the design of Merion East.
Beginning in the winter of 1911 Wilson and his committee came up with multiple design plans for the course (hence Richard Francis' account of many hours over the drawing board and in the field). Then they visited Macdonald at NGLA, then they honed those multiple design plans down to a few, then they had Macdonald/Whigam come back to Ardmore for a single day (April 6, 1911) and look over their plans and look over the ground again. This is obviously WHY Merion's records has always included their thanks to Macdonald and Whigam for their help and advice.
One of those plans of many plans generated by Wilson and his committee over the winter and spring of 1911 was submitted to the board in the middle of April 1911, it was approved by the board, and that was the plan that was constructed to.
I can understand that you are probably not aware of this and never have been but now that you are hopefully you will not again make statements like you just did above such as what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Why in the world would Wilson and committee have worked on design plans for the course all winter and into the spring if they were just going to construct to Barker's "rough layout" that he'd provided to Connell in June 1910??
All these men were trying to design and build themselves a new course in Ardmore and they were working very hard doing that but perhaps you actually think all these men on MCC's committees and on the board were all just lying to one another and just making up all that's recorded in MCC's board meeting minutes. Maybe you think all those recorded board and committee reports are a fairy tale and they were just faking it and constructing to Barker's "rough layout" plan to Connell of almost a year before!
Honestly, Tom MacWood, you really do need to give it up on this and just stop challenging everything endlessly, particularly when you're not even aware of over half of it.
That you actually asked me who George Connell was, at this point
, should be evidence enough that there really isn't any productive reason to carry on these discussions about Merion, or Macdonald or Barker with you. It's become a real waste of time for us and I expect you too. We all have better things to do, I'm quite sure.
We will finish our report one of these days soon and hopefully we can make it available to you. Then, HOPEFULLY, your endless questions to us and your endlessly challenges about Merion East's early architectural history will be finally answered.