[JESII]

Jeff,

The undisputed #1 reason for all of this is the potential interpretations of sentences and paragraphs.



Tom,

Did they eventually abandon the the railroad land purely because of the disconnect from the 13th green to the 14th tee?

[TEPaul]

"Understood, Tom...I need Shivas to help with my sentence structuring because my focus / emphasis is more on "WITH A LITTLE HELP..." than the word ALL."


Sully:

I sure hope you're joking about that. But if not, count me out. I think this sentence parsing in a total vacuum from the other events and recorded facts that directly relate to some of these statements is a real waste of time and effort.

[DMoriarty]

 I think we hit a snag in the time space continuum yesterday, and a mirror thread split off into a parallel universe.  Both the mirror and this one  existed simultaneously and independently.    I blame Dan Herman, as I believe his was the last post before the apocalyptic chaos ensued.  

Jim and Jeff, Did you see my responses?  Mike and Jim, Did you see the overlays I reposted?  This is about post 77 on my screen.  Is this consistent with yours?

I hate to say I told you so,  but I warned you all that technology would ruin the game.

I need  to get back to the parallel universe . . .  TEPeul was just about to tell us that the Coylers letter confirmed that there was already a plan  for the course in 1910, but that plan was not yet definite.
  

  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Did they eventually abandon the the railroad land purely because of the disconnect from the 13th green to the 14th tee?"


Sully:

That's a very good question; one we've tried to consider for a long time now but one that doesn't have a definite answer from Merion's records. I tend to think they abandoned that railroad land for holes because they picked up the land later (in the early 1920s) that created the present 11th green-end (over Cobbs Creek) and the first 200 yards of the present 12th hole. Of course right around this same time they decided to do away with playing three and perhaps even four holes back and forth over Ardmore Avenue.

And frankly, it isn't all that much shorter today to get from the 13th green to the 14th tee. You just don't have to walk around or through the clubhouse as they once did from the original 13th green to the 14th tee. That was probably a good thing with that old 13th green because you could easily have a couple of snorts on the way, but you can do the same thing now at that bar on the lower patio!

It is never a good idea to screw around with some of these "Captains of the Universe"/"amateur/sportsmen/gentlemen" and their complicated albeit highly sophisticated drinking habits!!!! Take away their easy access to booze and they can get pretty cantankerous and pissy.

[JESII]

David,

I did not, and cannot currently, see any overlays you posted.

[TEPaul]

"TEPeul was just about to tell us that the Coylers letter confirmed that there was already a plan  for the course in 1910, but that plan was not yet definite."


David Moriarty:

I wasn't just about to tell anyone anything of the kind, so try not to AGAIN misconstrue something I said which you try to turn into a FACT at some later point.

The important thing for everyone to know on this particular thread is your essay completely FABRICATED a scenario you've tried to turn into a FACT----eg that Francis's idea created the entire triangle in 1910. There is not a shred of hard fact of any kind whatsoever anywhere to support that notion or contention. The only support you have ever produced is YOUR MISINTERPRETATION of what a part of Francis's story meant. That's all you have and it's a total fallacy. If you have anything else that even remotely sniffs the concept of fact, let's see you produce it now!
  

[JESII]

Tom,

Those 12th and 13th holes must have been pretty spectacular, but the net - net of not crossing the road (with the ball hopefully in the air...) is undoubtedly an improvement especially coupled with the new 11th.

[JESII]

Timelines are indeed valuable things when trying to reconstruct events...

Why might they have drawn that triangle prior to 11/15/1910 if it was too narrow to fit golf into?

[TEPaul]

"I need  to get back to the parallel universe . . ."


David Moriarty:

I think you're absolutely right about that, as it seems like you've been in a parallel universe on the history of Merion for 5-6 years now. Why bother to get into the real universe at this point---because if you did you might actually have a chance at understanding something and learning something about the actual historical facts and details of the creation of Merion East?!  

Well, belay that; if you did begin to understand and learn the real facts and details of Merion East, then you'd pretty much have to admit how completely revisionist and wrong your essay is! I see almost a zero possiblility of that from you either now or at any time in the future.   

[TEPaul]

"Why might they have drawn that triangle prior to 11/15/1910 if it was too narrow to fit golf into?"


Sully:

Because at that point they hadn't even tried to lay out a course on that land. That was about a month and a half or more before they even appointed the Wilson Committee that was charged with routing, designing and building Merion East from early January 1911 on. The MCC records clearly show that before that point all they were concerned about is that they basically would be able to buy enough land to be able to layout (route and design) a course on. With that there is no question Macdonald and Whigam helped them and made them feel fairly comfortable they at least had enough good land that they (Wilson and his committee) could do that in the oncoming months.

Look what Macdonald said in his letter to Lloyd in June 1910 during his first visit to Ardmore, to which he would not return again for about ten months:

"The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making the Club House."

Anyone can see Macdonald said the problem THEY (clearly MCC and the yet to be appointed Wilson Committee) had to contend with (laying out a course) not the problem HE and Whigam had to contend with doing it for them. And anyone can see Macdonald also said there wasn't much else he could say at that point without a contour map in front of him.

By the way, when Moriarty wrote his essay he did not have Macdonald's letter available to him. That too had been in an attic at MCC for about a century and never transfered to Merion G.C. Wayne Morrison found it at MCC less than a year ago and provided it to him after the fact of his essay being put on this website! 

But even by the end of Dec. 1910 they still weren't that comfortable that the property boundaries or boundary lines were as they might need to be once they began to try to lay out a course and that is precisely why in the end of Dec. Cuylers recommended to the president of MCC that Lloyd take the land into his own name and put himself in the position to move boundary lines around at will if they need arose in the future.

It did and that was what the Francis idea, story and land swap was all about. It didn't happen in 1910. It happened in 1911.

[JESII]

Tom,

Are you suggesting they drew that "approximate location of road" without any consideration for golf holes?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Are you suggesting they drew that "approximate location of road" without any consideration for golf holes?"



Sully:

Of course not. What I'm suggesting is only what Merion's records show-----eg that they felt they had enough land to create a golf course on but they had no routed and designed course at that point, and they all understood that at the end of Dec. 1910 and that is exactly why Lloyd was in the position in 1911he put himself in at the end of Dec. 1910; to move boundary lines if he had to once Wilson and his committee began to create "layouts" and "plans" beginning in January 1911 and continuing on with that for the next three plus months.

For God's Sake, the Wilson Committee's April report to the board explained the Wilson Committee laid out numerous different courses on the land in January and February and early March 1911 and then honed it down to five different plans in the end of March 1911. If the club had had a golf course routing and plan from someone else anywhere close to finalization at the end of 1910 what in the world do you think the Wilson committee went to all that trouble for with all those numerous courses and different plans for three months in the winter of 1911? Do you actually think they did all that just for practice or something knowing the club had been basically handed a plan from someone else back at some point in 1910 with which all they had to do is just construct it when the spring of 1911 finally came around? 

Do you have any idea how many times Dick Youngscap had to move boundaries lines around once Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw began to route Sand Hills? He laughs about it still today.

[JESII]

Tom,

I don't think they built it to someone else's plans, but it would really surpirse me if they didn't do some noodling between June 1910 and January 1911.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't think they built it to someone else's plans, but it would really surpirse me if they didn't do some noodling between June 1910 and January 1911."



Sully:

I have no doubt they certainly may have but all we can go on is what they said when they recorded how and when they went about this entire thing. I mean for some of the people on here I'm sort of sorry that the Wilson Committee report in April didn't say even more such as "we did a little noodling in 1910 before we were appointed and got to work in the beginning of 1911 after the land was bought creating numerous different courses on the land and eventually five different plans" but they just didn't say anything about 1910 noodling.

I mean, Sully, I wish the hell they just video and audio taped those God-damned five guys that Moriarty calls "a bunch of novices" night and day for about a year so we could now analyze every single thing any of them ever did or said at any time on any part of any hole on that golf course but unfortunately that just didn't happen----it never does in this business and that is precisely WHY a whole lot of the contributors to this website, and certainly including David Moriarty, need to get out there on a site with some architects so they can begin to see what really does happen out there and the way it goes.

I guarantee you that you could interview most any architect in the world today who had just finished routing and designing any course and even he couldn't tell you who came up with all the stuff that happens out there that actually ends up getting done.

An education in architecture is not going to be gotten on this website when you have someone on here like Moriarty carrying on the way he has been for about 5-6 years. The education is out there on the ground when it's happening and I'm convinced if anyone on this website that has never done this before would just go out there and get this experience they would be fairly blown away and more than a little surprised----but at the end of the day they would have themselve a true education in golf course architecture and the way it really works!

[JESII]

Tom,

I am not trying to figure out any individual credit, I don't think they matter much at all when you consider how much the course changed over 20 or 30 years.

[DMoriarty]

Jim

I had posted that I am glad to see you chime in.  I recall that some of us had come to the conclusion that the holes fit, based on the overlays, and that you were one of those people. 

As for your question about the curve of the road, I believe that they curved the road to the point where the Haverford College property met with the Macfadden property just north of it.   Otherwise, Haverford College would have had no easy access to their land west of the RR and the creek.   

Also, curving the road in this manner avoided the creation of a rather useless long sliver of land sandwiched between the road and the Macfadden property.  Smart developers don't like wasting land, especially land next to golf courses.  Plus curving the road allowed them to market the land on the curve as facing the golf course.

An old post by Bryan Izatt:

Here's another attempt at overlaying the current course over the 11-15-10 drawing.  I've highlighted in red GH Rd on the old drawing and highlighted in black the train line, Ardmore and the Haverford property to help match the overlay. 

The old drawing has a scale on it and is therefore likely accurately drawn.  The relative locations of Ardmore, the train line, the club house the southern boundary of the Haverford College property and the wiggly eastern edge of the golf property all align perfectly with the current Google overlay, so I'm going to say the old drawing was accurately to scale.

What's obvious is that the course as currently laid out fits in the property as drawn on the 11-15-10 map with perhaps a sliver of land added up near the 15th fairway and green.  Some land to the west of the clubhouse appears to have been given up to allow the current GH Rd to arc closer to the club house.

I'd draw the conclusion that when Pugh & Hubbord, Civil Engineers, drew the map on November 5, 1910 they were already encompassing the Francis land swap.

Here is an old overlay I did long before my essay.  I used the 1910 plan and the 1916 RR Atlas, and tried to match up points that were independent of the golf course boundaries, such as already existing roads, creeks, and RR.   



While the road is not an exact match on either overlay, it is pretty close on both.  In my opinion, close enough for the holes to would fit with very little modification.

A few things to consider:

1.   As Jim pointed out, the triangle in the 1910 drawing extends about 60 yards further than what was actually used for the course.   While the actual course property does narrow a bit, it is much more like a rectangle with a rounded corner than a "triangle."   The shape of the parcel on the 1910 version may make it appear narrower than it really is.    At least the overlays indicate that it planned road was pretty close to the location of the actual road.  Perhaps not quite 130 yards at the widest,  but definitely more than the 90 yards that Mike Cirba insists upon.

2.  It is a mistake to assume that the Eastern border of this land (next to the 16th tee) is the same now as it was when the land was purchased.

3. Surely Francis was not writing about giving up the land across from the clubhouse upon which those great houses were eventually built in exchange for the tiny sliver of land need to push the road over a tiny bit up in the corner.  After all, these men were reportedly "Captain's of the Universe;" they would have swung a better deal than that. 

4.  The location of the road is marked "approximate" so I wouldn't expect the actual road to have ended up perfectly exact. 

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Rather than you continuing to take irrelevant shots at me and my essay, perhaps we could discuss the facts.

You have repeatedly mentioned a December 19, 1910 letter from T. Dewitt Cuylers to Allen Evans, the president of the club.   A few times you vaguely described one small portion of the letter in a rather attenuated fashion.  You claim that the letter indicated that the plan for the golf course was not yet definite.     So it seems pretty definite that this letter and/or other sources confirm that by this December 19, 1910 Merion had a plan for the golf course, but that it had not yet been made definite.   

Is this a fair and accurate understanding?    If not, could you please clarify exactly what this letter said.    Thanks.

Also, yesterday you wrote you were going to create an timeline of events after Nov. 15 1910, and that this timeline would disprove my Francis landswap theory.   When can we expect that?   Will it include facts, or just your understanding of what happened?  Because I think we all have your understanding, but are just waiting on the facts.   Thanks Again.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I am not trying to figure out any individual credit, I don't think they matter much at all when you consider how much the course changed over 20 or 30 years."


Sully:

Maybe you aren't but Tom MacWood sure was when he posted that thread over six years ago that basically started all these Merion/Macdonald threads. We told him back then that type of thing was just unknowable because stuff like that is never recorded. I really don't remember how much he accepted that or not. We told him that Merion and us had known about the involvment in the beginning with Macdonald/Whigam but that given all the information with the history of the courses from the beginning everyone who was around it back then accepted that even though Wilson and his committee did it that they all said that in the main Hugh I. Wilson was responsible for the original architecture of the East and West courses; he didn't know anything about that Macdonald/Whigam connection in the beginning when he posted that thread back in 2003, so I guess he figured he'd discovered something that neither Merion nor any of us ever knew.

I kind of recall that MacWood kept at it for a while but sort of backed off and then David Moriarty came along and took the whole issue to another level entirely by trying to claim that Macdonald/Whigam essentially routed and designed the course somehow and were the driving force behind it. That resulted in his essay on here which to those who really do know the details of the architectural history of that course is the biggest load of inaccurate and fallacious and specious reasoning imaginable. The problem is that people who don't know all that much about the detals of Merion's history don't really understand where and how he created the total fallacies and engaged in such specious reasoning. But I sure do know and so do the others who really understand it all.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  While it really adds nothing of substance to the conversation, I do agree somewhat with your last post.    Tom MacWood began asking questions about Merion six years ago or before, and I joined in sometime thereafter.   That entire time you and Wayne have consistently maintained that:

You guys understand Merion's history and know all there is that can be know about it, so if anyone claims differently they should be dismissed as wrong, irrational, and unreasonable, because you guys completely understand Merion's history and know all there is that can be know about it, so if anyone claims differently they should be dismissed as wrong, irrational, and unreasonable, because you guys . . . etc.

You guys have maintained this position at every stage of this discussion, and still today.   Yet our understanding of what went on in those early days of Merion is much deeper and more accurate now than it was in 2003.     I think we will find here again that, contrary to your constant claims otherwise, we have much more to learn. 

So what do you say we set aside the posturing and get to it?

1.  You have repeatedly mentioned a December 19, 1910 letter from T. Dewitt Cuylers to Allen Evans, the president of the club.   A few times you vaguely described one small portion of the letter in a rather attenuated fashion.  You claim that the letter indicated that the plan for the golf course was not yet definite.     So it seems pretty definite that this letter and/or other sources confirm that by December 19, 1910 Merion had a plan for the golf course, but that it had not yet been made definite.   

Is this a fair and accurate understanding?    If not, could you please clarify exactly what this letter said. 

2.  Yesterday you wrote you were going to create a time line of events after Nov. 15 1910, and that this timel ine would disprove my Francis land swap theory.   When can we expect that?   Will it include facts, or just your understanding of what happened?  Because I think we all have your understanding, but are just waiting on the facts. 

[TEPaul]

"You have repeatedly mentioned a December 19, 1910 letter from T. Dewitt Cuylers to Allen Evans, the president of the club.   A few times you vaguely described one small portion of the letter in a rather attenuated fashion.  You claim that the letter indicated that the plan for the golf course was not yet definite.     So it seems pretty definite that this letter and/or other sources confirm that by this December 19, 1910 Merion had a plan for the golf course, but that it had not yet been made definite.   

Is this a fair and accurate understanding?    If not, could you please clarify exactly what this letter said.    Thanks."


David Moriarty:

If you want the exact wording of the Cuyler letter rather than my opinion of what it says go back and address what I said to you in my post #41 and again in my post #52 and get back to me about whether you're willing to have a discussion on here about demanding access to a private clubs material. You can just disregard this post too and ask me again but I'm going to tell you the very same thing I have on three posts now.

[Kyle Harris]

Has anyone asked why the minuted would mention any prior plans?

Meeting minutes are generally kept so there is a record of who promised/voted on what in a meeting for the future.

They are not a record of all things that occur.

[TEPaul]

"A few things to consider:

1.   As Jim pointed out, the triangle in the 1910 drawing extends about 60 yards further than what was actually used for the course.   While the actual course property does narrow a bit, it is much more like a rectangle with a rounded corner than a "triangle."   The shape of the parcel on the 1910 version may make it appear narrower than it really is.    At least the overlays indicate that it planned road was pretty close to the location of the actual road.  Perhaps not quite 130 yards at the widest,  but definitely more than the 90 yards that Mike Cirba insists upon.

2.  It is a mistake to assume that the Eastern border of this land (next to the 16th tee) is the same now as it was when the land was purchased.

3. Surely Francis was not writing about giving up the land across from the clubhouse upon which those great houses were eventually built in exchange for the tiny sliver of land need to push the road over a tiny bit up in the corner.  After all, these men were reportedly "Captain's of the Universe;" they would have swung a better deal than that.  

4.  The location of the road is marked "approximate" so I wouldn't expect the actual road to have ended up perfectly exact."



David Moriarty:

I'd be glad to consider those points with you because I think you are misinterpreting some of them or parts of them, particularly the configuration of the road above #16 tee (although I'm not exactly sure what your point is). The way to figure out the differences of the land dimensions around any part of how Golf House Road was actually built from College Ave on the north to Ardmore Ave on the south compared to that proposed plan proposed road are not to just look at it on that plan and some old aerial or whatever. The best way to determine the land dimension differences (The Francis idea and swap) are to measure it on that proposed plan because it is in scale and then just go out on the ground and measure it and compare the differences of it anywhere along its entire run from College to Ardmore Ave.

I think it is really remarkable that more people on here haven't taken you to task for just ignoring and dismissing the dimensions of a professional survey map (the Nov. 15, 1910 proposed plan given to the membership). To maintain some of your fallacious assumptions and premises you have constantly just assumed that map is wrong or inaccurate or inexact and dismissed it as a really accurate measurement tool because it doesn't support your crazy notions about this Francis idea and land swap and how it happened and when. Apparently you don't know much more about real estate than you do about the history of Merion East. Professional surveyors tend not to get property lines wrong or they will run into all kinds of potential  problems with property buyers and sellers and mortgage and title companies and such.

As for what those borders were when that land was first transfered to Lloyd on Dec 19, 1910 and then when he transfered it to the MCC Golf Association Company on July 19, 1911, I can tell you exactly what the differences were because I have all the metes and bounds of both deeds plus I know how to measure those kinds of things off a IN SCALE plan.

Are you going to now assume and claim that those measurements have been wrong for a century? Wait until I tell that to Gary and Megan Van Arkle who live on the east corner of College and Golf House Road (a part of the old MacFadden place) and Bob and Joanie Hall who live directly accross Golf House Road on the west side of the road.

Shall I tell them they should take it up their correct property boundaries with some yahoo in California who is convinced that these property lines are wrong and have been for close to a century because a professional survey company must have made a mistake so he can continue to defend some wild and inaccurate contention about the creation of Merion East in a revisionist essay on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?  

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  I think you misunderstood my post.

1.    I am not "ignoring and dismissing the dimensions of a professional survey map."   Nor have I "constantly just assumed that map is wrong and inaccurate and dismissed it as a really accurate measurement tool."     I assumed the map was to scale.  Nonetheless, when a surveyor writes "APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROAD" I take him at his word.  The plan approximates the location of the road, and the rest is to scale.

2.   I didn't use "some old aerial or whatever," I used a RR Atlas, also drawn by a professional surveyor and also to scale. 

3.  I never said the Eastern border of the golf course up in that corner has been "wrong for a century."  I said that it was a mistake to assume that the east border of the course up that courner was the same in the 1910 plan as today.

4.  I don't understand the point of telling us the names of the people who live in those lots, as it has nothing to do the discussion.   I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you really should consider deleting their names from your posts out of respect for their privacy.

5.  Again, stop the name calling and insults.  And Tom, you really don't want to get into who figured what out regarding Merion's real estate transactions.
_________________________________________________

If you want the exact wording of the Cuyler letter rather than my opinion of what it says go back and address what I said to you in my post #41 and again in my post #52 and get back to me about whether you're willing to have a discussion on here about demanding access to a private clubs material. You can just disregard this post too and ask me again but I'm going to tell you the very same thing I have on three posts now.

I've answered your inquiry in 41 and 52.  Give me hard facts that you think prove that Francis was wrong, and I will consider it. 

As for rest, I have tried to discuss it, but you ignore my posts.  I'll try again.  Let's start with a simple question:

Do you understand that me demanding that you back up your continuous attacks on my essay with facts is different from me demanding that Merion and/or MCC turn over their all of their documents to me?  The first has happened and will again.  The second hasn't and never will. 

Even the most basic standard of civil discourse requires that you and Wayne back up your continuous attacks with facts so that I may vet them and respond.   If you weren't willing to do this, then you should have never have used the club documents to attack my essay in the first place.  I explained this all to you from the very beginning, and I insisted that you either come forward with facts or stop with the attacks.    You have continued with the attacks for a year, so it is a bit late to try and hide behind the clubs.   As for what kind of position this might put you in with the clubs, that is your business, and you were aware of it from the very beginning.

If you don't understand any of this, I will be glad to explain it to you further.

And as always, I have nothing against Merion and MCC, and don't believe for a minute that they have anything to do with these ultimatums or with your selective use of their information for rhetorical gain.  If Merion and/or MCC have any issue with what I have or have not "demanded," I will be glad to discuss it with them and do the right thing, but  why would I have that conversation with you, and in a public forum, as opposed to them, in private?   What do you have to do with it?   You are not here representing Merion or MCC, are you?

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Very interesting post indeed. Perhaps without even realizing it, with your last post you have started a discussion on here about your demands for access to information to do with Merion's private material that I wanted you to have and asked you to have on posts #41 and #52 (even though I prefer a separate thread and I might cut and past this exchange onto another one with this subject). So it will be interesting to see HOW you continue to respond, or IF you continue to respond, when I get into the specifics of your last post. My bet is you won't!

But before we begin, I will tell you I find a good deal of interest in, and I frankly take a good deal of comfort in, the fact that you are the only person on this website and for years or ever (with the possible exception of MacWood) who has ever made the kinds of demands on members and friends of Merion for this actual and private material that you have been doing and continue to do.

Everyone else on here seems just fine with my opinion or Wayne's opinion on the sometimes private material we have on courses like Merion or Pine Valley or  Shinnecock or even Myopia and they don't or you don't. In a general sense, if we didn't even share our opinions on here about some of this private material that may remain private no one on here would know a thing of it. If any golf club who knows us and knows that we are providing our opinions on material like this doesn't like it we are the only ones who will hear about it from them and suffer some consequences. Certainly people like you don't or ever will because you know no one there and you have nothing whatsoever at risk with your friends or your reputation there. If you for a single second think Merion or anyone from Merion has the slightest interest in ever talking to you about any of this please let me disabuse you of that additional crazy notion on your part.

 No one else on here has made the same kinds of demands you have of us to produce actual private club material rather than our opinions of it; not even close. That means a good deal to me and I think it says a good deal about a lot of things, including you.

[DMoriarty]

Again Tom, I think we need to clarify here.  I haven't made any demands of Merion or MCC.  I have made demands of those who have ceaselessly attacked my essay, my intelligence, and my character for the past year or more, yet have refused to back up their attacks with the facts they claim exist.  That isn't Merion or MCC.  That'd be Wayne, you, and Mike Cirba.   And while you may be friend of Merion, and Wayne is a member, my demands are only of those of you who have talked the talk for a year, but have thus far refused to walk the walk. 

My demands are for nothing more than what the most basic civil discussion requires.  You came after me with claim after claim, insult after insult, and now it is my turn to vet and answer your claims, or vet and accept them, but either way vetting them has to be part of the process.   

As to why I am the only one making these demands of you guys, can you think of anyone else (other that MacWood) who you have constantly attacked  for over a year based on mysterious source material that only you were allowed to see?  I can't.

I don't think I ever asked Merion for a thing prior to my essay.  I don't think I ever demanded a thing from you guys until after you guys started using the material to undermine my essay and my character.   

Imagine if I got access to someone's old diary, like Hugh Wilson's, and claimed the person who gave me access was very private and didnt want the information out there.   But then went ahead and cherry-picked tidbits out of the diary to attack your positions and to build up my own.  Not only that but imagine I also used the information to repeatedly attack and insult you, your character, and your intelligence.  What would your response be?   Somehow I doubt you would simply take what I was telling you at face value.  I also have a feeling you'd demand that I back up my claims. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()