[DMoriarty]

Mike,

As I said to Dan, of course you believe this.   But then your opinion really doesn't get us any closer to figuring out exactly what happened, does it?       

Not only that, but your disagreement doesn't refute my essay, does it?  That would takes facts, and so far none have.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

As I said to Dan, of course you believe this.   But then your opinion really get us any closer to figuring out exactly what happened, does it?       

Not only that, but your disagreement doesn't refute my essay, does it?  That would takes facts, and so far none have.

Dave,

How does one factually refute a person who admits that the dimensions of a map are useless to measure any of the relevant pieces of the property but then states that existence of land that was clearly part of the original property on the map proves that the Francis Land Swap happened before then? 

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  all your eye rolling and absurdities will not change the fact that I am using the document for no more and no less that what those who created intended.  While not exact, the plan tells us where MCC planned to put the course.   Is that really so hard to understand?   

You are pretty funny, though.  When you misunderstood the document you thought it proved everything.  Now that you understand it, you want to throw it out.  This is a bit of a pattern here.  You puffing up things you don't totally understand, only to dismiss them or forget them once you finally grasp them.   A skeptic might think your theory works better in the realm of fiction rather than fact.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

In your reply to David, you stated, "you've had to try to rationalize and dismiss all of the facts that don't agree with your premise"
Could you list ALL the facts that don't agree with David's premise ?

Perhaps David could address each and every one.

David has been fairly consistent in maintaining his position, whereas those that want to refute his presentation seemed to have changed their position, consistently.

It seems like there are those that DON'T want David to pursue the fact finding process.
I would include you and Dan in that category.
Why wouldn't you want to assist David in trying to research the facts ?
Why do you refute EVERYTHING he presents ?

The real question is:
Do you want to search for the truth or rigidly defend the status quo without delving further into the pursuit of the facts ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

You don't suppose someone is hoping for some sort of honorary membership into Merion by staunchly "protecting" them in a open, public discussion group, do you?

Probably not, but no one puts forth this much effort without hoping for some sort of return on the investment.

 

[JESII]

Mike,

Can you agree that "Approximate" is a very different word than "Hypothetical" when discussing a land plan such as this one?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

You don't suppose someone is hoping for some sort of honorary membership into Merion by staunchly "protecting" them in a open, public discussion group, do you?

Probably not, but no one puts forth this much effort without hoping for some sort of return on the investment.

 

Joe,

I just think David is very, very insulting and dismissive of what Hugh Wilson did and I think his reputation and accomplishments deserve much better.

These days it seems to be almost a fad to try and tear down heroes and after five years here David still hasn't proven anything, most of what he has contended has been disproven, and his EXHIBIT A, the 1910 Land Plan turns out to be a piece of toilet paper.

I'm sorry you don't feel the same.

The day Merion asks me to be a member will be the same day flying elephants stream out of my butt.

But thanks for the insult anyway.

Mike,

There was a smiley as a denotation that my comments were in jest. I'm sorry to have tried such a thing in this thread. I should know better.

Apologies.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Can you agree that "Approximate" is a very different word than "Hypothetical" when discussing a land plan such as this one?

Jim,

Why do you think the "Approximate" road goes all the way 327 yards north to College Avenue?

Is it because they wanted to build golf holes in an increasingly narrow spot of land that mins out at 11 feet wide and that's actually how they designed their course, or is it because that's the northern boundary of the Johnson Farm, which provided the largest land mass for the Merion course.

The rest is just semantics.  How about "invisible" road?   Or "relative boundary"?  

Bottom Line is nothing existed there at that time but a false line drawn through a Farm Property.

The Land Plan is way off, and a fake road running through it is not indicative of anything, much less somehow overturning the preponderance of evidence that all of the routing and design activities took place after the land was actually purchased by Lloyd in December 1910.

[JESII]

Mike and Tom,

One of your main points in defending the late winter/ spring date for the Francis Swap are his comments about the quarryman blasting away a couple days later...and your critique is the notion of blasting away on land you didn't yet own.

A couple issues with that failed logic:
1) To take "a couple days" literally (as you now must!) would mean his idea came on the 17th or 18th of April because the Board meeting was on the 19th which you claim effectuated the Swap immediately (or at latest, the following day).

2) LLoyd already owned the land through HDC, they could have blasted away any time they wanted once they determined this is where the holes were going...and the fact that LLoyd was the key to approving the idea further supports an earlier timing...prior to the December transfer to LLoyd/MCCGC from LLoyd/HDC...

[TEPaul]

"And therein lies the crux of the entire disagreement, in my view.

While you David see the existence of land adjacent to Haverford College that runs all the way north to College Avenue as indicative of some preconceived notion of the golf course, I believe that it's merely the fact that the Johnson Farm in that section ran from Ardmore Avenue all the way up to College Avenue, and the equidistant, slow-curving, hypothetical, approximate road merely makes a nice potential boundary between the real estate and golf components.

I think if it were meant to indicate anything pre-planned routing, I'm quite certain the triangle would have ended well before College Avenue, EXACTLY as the course does today, but it doesn't...it runs all the way up to College Avenue, just like the Johnson Farm did.

I also believe it would be accurate dimensionally, both in terms of width, where it's too narrow, and length, where it's WAY too long.

That makes sense, because it was a rough approximation and indicative really as a working idea, not some reflection of a finished, routed, completed golf course."




I also think therein lies the crux!

I could not agree with Mike Cirba more in that statment of his on Post #(whatever). He did not think of this because we have been essentially saying this since this ludicrous essay came out.

But the point is if all participants are willing, we really can have a discussion on here that I believe will eventually prove through the analysis of the actual FACTS FROM Merion's own history why this is indeed the case!

Will David Moriarty ALLOW that discussion to happen? At this moment, I believe that remains to be seen!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike and Tom,

One of your main points in defending the late winter/ spring date for the Francis Swap are his comments about the quarryman blasting away a couple days later...and your critique is the notion of blasting away on land you didn't yet own.

A couple issues with that failed logic:
1) To take "a couple days" literally (as you now must!) would mean his idea came on the 17th or 18th of April because the Board meeting was on the 19th which you claim effectuated the Swap immediately (or at latest, the following day).

2) LLoyd already owned the land through HDC, they could have blasted away any time they wanted once they determined this is where the holes were going...and the fact that LLoyd was the key to approving the idea further supports an earlier timing...prior to the December transfer to LLoyd/MCCGC from LLoyd/HDC...

Jim,

I agree that this could have taken place any time after Lloyd actually took control of the property...anytime after December 19th, 1910.

Why do you think the approximate road ran all the way to College Avenue if it was supposed to reflect the previously laid out golf course?

It's not like it's off by 10 feet, or 20.

It's off by 30 yards wide and it's off by 137 yards long!!!!   

[JESII]

Jim,

I agree that this could have taken place any time after Lloyd actually took control of the property...anytime after December 19th, 1910.

Why do you think the approximate road ran all the way to College Avenue if it was supposed to reflect the previously laid out golf course?

It's not like it's off by 10 feet, or 20.

It's off by 30 yards wide and it's off by 137 yards long!!!!   

Mike,

Golf House Road still goes all the way to College Avenue!

And Lloyd/HDC had control of the JOhnson Farm well before December 1910 and you all know it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Golf House Road still goes all the way to College Avenue!

And Lloyd/HDC had control of the JOhnson Farm well before December 1910 and you all know it.

Jim,

But the golf course that's implied...no, the golf course that's hypothetically DRAWN in that Land Plan is NOT the golf course that was designed or the golf course that was built..

THE REAL GOLF COURSE THAT WAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED ANG BUILT extends further west of that line by 30 yards and it stops further south by 137 yards.

And while I think you're right that Lloyd had some control by November, at least by some accounts, he certainly did not have control back in June/July when David tells us the course was routed and finalized.

[TEPaul]

"And Lloyd/HDC had control of the JOhnson Farm well before December 1910 and you all know it."


Sully:

If he did, which he very well may have (in his negotiations with Connell of HDC) why in the world wouldn't the Francis idea and solution (IF it happened before Nov. 15. 1910) have been reflected in the configuration of the land between HDC and MCC WHEN Lloyd bought the land on Dec. 19. 1910?
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"A couple issues with that failed logic:
1) To take "a couple days" literally (as you now must!) would mean his idea came on the 17th or 18th of April because the Board meeting was on the 19th which you claim effectuated the Swap immediately (or at latest, the following day)."


Sully:

I am incredulous that you would say or think that!!! Why would that have to be and where did any of us or any of them say THAT? Can't you possiblly understand that Francis' idea and Lloyd' midnight agreement to it could have come at some point between WHEN Lloyd OWNED the land (Dec. 19, 1910) and that MCC board meeting that APPROVED that land swap idea (April 19, 1911) so that the boundaries could be adjusted when Lloyd passed ownership from his name to MCCGA (on July 21, 1911) (which by the way he was the president of)?

[TEPaul]

"2) LLoyd already owned the land through HDC, they could have blasted away any time they wanted once they determined this is where the holes were going...and the fact that LLoyd was the key to approving the idea further supports an earlier timing...prior to the December transfer to LLoyd/MCCGC from LLoyd/HDC..."


Sully:

Lloyd did NOT own the land untill Dec, 21, 1911 and in case you're as dense as Moriarty seems to be THAT date that lloyd actually owned the land (Dec. 19, 1910)  is AFTER Nov, 15, 1910. That essentially means one generally does NOT blast the top off of a quarry ONE DOES NOT ACTUALLY OWN!!!

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:



I am going to list a number of recorded FACTS that, in my opinon, have come forth from Merion's own records SINCE your essay that you could not possibly have known about BEFORE you wrote your essay!

Do you have any problem with THAT?

Please take this post and that question in the spirit of cooperation!

[DMoriarty]

I just think David is very, very insulting and dismissive of what Hugh Wilson did and I think his reputation and accomplishments deserve much better.

These days it seems to be almost a fad to try and tear down heroes and after five years here David still hasn't proven anything, most of what he has contended has been disproven, and his EXHIBIT A, the 1910 Land Plan turns out to be a piece of toilet paper.

Mike,  You prove yet again why you are not emotionally capable of having this conversation.  

_____________________________

Hey TomPaul,  If you want to have a discussion then stop with the insults.   

It is a misrepresentation to say that Lloyd owned the land.   He held title for HDC.   

David Moriarty:



I am going to list a number of recorded FACTS that, in my opinon, have come forth from Merion's own records SINCE your essay that you could not possibly have known about BEFORE you wrote your essay!

Do you have any problem with THAT?

Yes I do.   I'd like to see the facts, but I have no interest in your continued efforts to bolster your ego or tear down my research.  So if you've got facts to list, then list them.  But leave the rest out. 

[Bryan Izatt]

....................

Bryan:

.........................

I happen to believe there was 21 acres between the western delineation of Club House Road from College Ave on the north to Ardmore Ave on the south and the entire western boundary of the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm ON THEIR WORKING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS.

........................

Tom,

Could you explain why you believe it was 21 acres on the "WORKING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY MAPS"?  You have often stated that the topo maps are lost, likely forever.  Do you have another source of information that indicates what was on the topo maps?

[Kirk Gill]

I know that this question will be an exercise in futility, as I'm going to be told to go look somewhere else for this information, but after twenty-some pages of this discussion, I find myself not really knowing what any of the principals on this thread are really trying to prove, or state, or declaim, or whatever word you want to use. Would it, at this point, be too much to ask for David, Brian, Tom, and Mike, to state their positions, their theories, etc? David, I'm trying to follow this, truly, but at this point, when you say that someone is ridiculing your theories, on some level I honestly don't know what you mean. If no one wants to take the time, then fine. But perhaps if someone could point me to a post or a page where I can read this information, or point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

[Bryan Izatt]

"Thanks Tom, now what about the metes and bounds."


Bryan:

I think I have all Merion's deeds (maybe 11-12) but most interestingly we do not seem to have the actual deed copy of the 161 acre transfer to Lloyd on Dec. 19, 1911.   I am saddened, once again.    I had hoped, and still hope, that we can accurately place the land transfers on the current map to help move the debate along.  What we have is a brief abstract from Merieon of it. I do not believe Merion has ever had an actual copy of that deed. Wayne and I were talking about going to Media to get a copy of it tomorrow.  If you do get one, will you provide the metes so that we can visualize the location of the land transfer. In the meantime, will you provide the metes for the other land transfer in question, that you do have.

One might wonder, particularly one on this website, who has followed these Merion threads why Merion would not have a copy of that Dec. 19, 1910 deed along with their other 11-12? I guess the easy answer would be because it wasn't technically Merion's deed, it was Horatio Gates Lloyd's et ux!     I wonder about a lot of things on this thread, but they just make my head hurt.  Nice try on the easy answer,     but now you can do the right thing and complete your collection (and hopefully share the information with us.)

[TEPaul]

"It is a misrepresentation to say that Lloyd owned the land.   He held title for HDC."


Moriarty, let me tell you something. I was a real estate broker in Pennsylvania for a couple of decades and Horatio Gates Lloyd et ux OWNED that land (161 acres) for seven months! Would you like me to tell you WHY you arrogant smuck? Had he wanted to keep that land in his OWN name all he would've had to do is pay the $85,000 price agreed to between HDC and MCC on the deed out on July, 21, 1911.

IF you don't undertand THAT about real estate in Pennsylvania you don't understand MUCH.

And you're trying to TELL ME I don't understand metes and bounds in Pennsylvania??? I dealt with that kind of thing all the time. I brokered the buying and selling all kinds of farms and places around here and if some buyer or even seller wanted to ACTUALLY see his metes and bounds I would take him right out there on the ground and SHOW him the stones and "monunments" of those metes and bounds that could've gone back for centuries of land transfers. It's the same with the stones and monuments on the farm I own in Pennsylvania!

You actually said on here that I don't understand metes and bounds of real estate?! Are you actually questioning my own business career in real estate ON HERE?? Would you like me to ask you WHY you were a lawyer and you don't practice law anymore?? And it's not as if I haven't heard those stories about why you no longer practice law.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Here are the dimensions of the first few hundred feet of the western border of the HDC lands, beginning of Golf house road, according to the 1928 documents.  (Note that the border follows the centerline of Golf house road. 

Begin at the point where the center line of College and the center line of Golf House Road cross and go South 23:56:45 East, 230.03 ft. (At this point the road curves west, radius 200.8 ft., so the rest are the chords.)  South 15:19 East, 60 ft.  Then South 1:12 East, 38.3 ft.  Then South 14:31 West, 71 ft.

The survey doesn't provide a chord for the remainder of the curve shown, but does provide a long chord from the end of the straight 230.03 ft segment to the last point on the curve shown: North 7:34:56 East, 209.25 ft. 

Thanks David, I'll take a look at them.

[DMoriarty]

I know that this question will be an exercise in futility, as I'm going to be told to go look somewhere else for this information, but after twenty-some pages of this discussion, I find myself not really knowing what any of the principals on this thread are really trying to prove, or state, or declaim, or whatever word you want to use. Would it, at this point, be too much to ask for David, Brian, Tom, and Mike, to state their positions, their theories, etc?

David, I'm trying to follow this, truly, but at this point, when you say that someone is ridiculing your theories, on some level I honestly don't know what you mean.

Don't worry about it Kirk, they don't understand my theories either, but that doesn't stop them.  Here are a few examples from TEPaul's attempts at civilized conversation:

. . . we have been essentially saying this since this ludicrous essay came out.

in case you're as dense as Moriarty seems to be . . .

My essay is on the in my opinion page, and while there are some changes and a few corrections, it is basically all still intact.   My position about the timing of the Francis swap is the same as it was then.  

You confusion probably stems from the fact that these guys have gone through about three or four different theories about why I must be wrong.  When one fails they just replace it with another, even if the next is diametrically opposed to the last.

What it comes down to is that these guys know I am wrong, regardless of the facts.  

[TEPaul]

"If you do get one, will you provide the metes so that we can visualize the location of the land transfer. In the meantime, will you provide the metes for the other land transfer in question, that you do have."

Bryan:

If do provide the metes and bounds of any deeds we may have would you mind PROVIDING to our satisfication what you THINK you can do with the information on them? Hopefully we can question you on what you think you might SPECIFICALLY accomplish with that information.

If Moriarty really wants to know WHY some of us here like Wayne and I won't supply him with information, all he has to do is tell us on here that he doesn't mind us telling the TRUTH of why we aren't supplying information to him and probably never will!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()