Bryan,
not pissed, didn't take anything personally. Just realized that this is a no win battle for both the logical arguments put out there or lack thereof, all of our tendencies to call our arguments logic and opposing arguments speculation, and in this latest flurry, the realization that we don't even all have the same basic understanding of points not even in contention.
The prime example is the RR land. I think someone brought it up a while back. In my mind, it was pretty well conceded that this came later and that MCC is really 123 acres 120 from HDC and 3 from the RR. And yet, here it comes back up today. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that was settled. Ditto on Pat and the role of Barker. I was pretty damn sure that everyone agreed that Connell brought him in June 1910, and MCC brought in CBM. Then we spend a week debating whether double negative logic means that Barker's routing MIGHT be included somehow, somewhere in MCC. I was pretty damn sure that we agreed that it was done at the start, but not the end.
Old arguments keep popping up like brushfires here. So do new ones, like the 130 acres option. That is new to me, so I have no answer for you, other than the newspaper may be wrong. And, to simplify Mke C's contention, how on earth could there have been a land swap if the working boundary was 130 acres? It would have had to have been a land give back to the tune of 10 acres, not a swap.
Have you done your Google measurements to see if Johnson Farm less land adjacent to Haverford CC equals 130 acres?