Mike
Thinking is good, if you are given or have access to all the facts.
I don’t understand what the attitudes are like in your area of the world but the opinion of those about me is that a war was promoted because of WMD, which has since proven to be a total fabrication. That miss information on that occasion had dire consequences for the whole world. For my part I was pro removing the Dictator (which should have happen at the end of the first Gulf War), I was hoping that WMD would be found to strengthen our cause but in the end it led to us just winning some battles and losing the real war.
My point is that we need to be accurate, or at least try to be. If errors are made then they will be seen as honest and open. Like the comments or expressions that the majority of members on this site tend to use to qualify their own statements by adding those honest and gutsy little words In My Humble Opinion.
I would also like to point out that IMHO for a discussion to take place questions need to be answered. If that does not materialise then I see no point in have a debate, it becomes one sided and never actually moves forward.
As for Cruden Bay Golf Course, my opinion is still that Old Tom was involved, that he was commissioned in 1894 and continued through to the end. Perhaps, just perhaps he started to take a back seat in the latter years of the 19th Century, but there is no proof of that.
As for Tom’s comments (as he has never qualified them as opinions even though they maybe on this discussion board), he has maintained until just recently that Old Tom Morris did not design Cruden Bay – in one reference Ian Andrews posting for Tom MacWood, reply 29 Topic “Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ” dated Feb 20th 08. No ‘In My Opinion’ but a statement of fact which read as follows D) OTM did not design Cruden Bay; CB was originally designed by Archie Simpson.
Interesting, no one said a word against that statement, yet there is information from Tulloch’s book, the Buchan Observer, The Brig O’ Balgownie book and The Times confirmed his involvement. I now see that Tom is saying that perhaps Old Tom was after all involved on an advisory capacity – I don’t remember the words in my opinion, but again it comes across to me as a statement of fact.
We need to look at all the information, not just ignore the earlier points because it does not seem to fit ones theories. If in the end I find out that Old Tom was not responsible for any courses, it will not upset me, if it proves to be the truth. I just want to know his involvement. For some reason Tom appears determined to minimise all Old Tom's design involvement.
To prove my point again the article Tom asked Ian to post stated (with no IMHO) the following A) Old Tom did not design the Old Course. Of course he did not design the original course but again no explanation that for nearly 40 years he developed and modified the Old Course to more or less it current layout. His changes on many, many occasions were tantamount to major modifications, but he just can’t bring himself to say it.
Perhaps others are right and there maybe a hidden agenda.
I have been e-mailed some information which originated from Wikipedia and maybe is the base or used information for report on articles I have read. The web site is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruden_BayThe part of sent reads as follows: -
The railway brought grandeur but not lasting prosperity to Cruden Bay. The branch line from Ellon to Boddam near Peterhead was opened in 1897, along with the golf course[ and the 55-bedroom Cruden Bay Hotel two years later. A tramway was added linking the station and hotel.
Suppose the answer could be down to the way you read sentence.
Tom I don’t think I have anymore to say to you on the subject of Old Tom.