Pat,
Sadly, it was me. I am sorry for venting some frustrations at you, even if I am beginning to think you are a world class knucklehead! Allowing you to bring me back in to a pointless debate is a character flaw of mine, I admit.
I never allowed MIKE C to conclude that "the Barker routing wasn't substantive because there's no proof that the committee/Board viewed the routing". We all know they viewed it. In one of my posts, I argued that subsequent events rendered in non-substantive in the history or Merion, or more accurately, in the final form that Merion East assumed. Period.
BTW, Barkers letter that your refer to says he is enclosing a rough sketch. I am not assuming anything, just taking the man at his word.
As to the virtuoso comment, since the specific debate on this thread is to determine the Merion East Timeline, I have asked you just how (and as you demand) with what FACTS do you surmise any portion of the Barker Routing made it into the final form of Merion? If you have answered that in all your bluster I have missed it. If I want someone to repeatedly tell me I am wrong without really listening to me, I believe I will return to my ex wife. As hard as this will be to believe to readers of this web site, she is even more repetitive, less logical and more of a bulldog than you are. A real sweetheart, both of you!
In actual FACT, MCC talked to Barker (hired by Connell) and they talked to CBM. They moved forward using CBM's advice. They did NOT move forward using Barkers advice. They talked to two of the leading golf course experts in June of 1910 and made their selection to have CBM assist them. Ask me, Tom Doak or any gca and you will soon here that they may have done some speculative and/or paid preliminary routings and then not gotten the job.
That seems to be what happened to Barker. While he claimed "20 projects" in that June 10 letter, according to Cornish and Whitten he had but three completed projects by then (to 2 for CBM, but CBM's were more highly regarded) He prepared a quick sketch routing, for another party, and apparently not even if required by his engagement to Connell (although I don't know that for sure) Yes, it was seen by MCC.
However, in my estimation, for it to be substantive, it would have had to be, well..... USED.... by MCC in later work rather than discarded.
Are you going to argue that an unused routing not paid for by MCC is substantive? Or are you prepared to show some proof other than some more bluster, or alleging a Philly conspiracy that it had some substance?