If I missed that attribution then I apologize. Your essay posted on this site seems to have been updated; would that be a correct assessment? If so, just one time since initial publication, or multiple times?
If you missed the attribution? Mike, you have really turned out to be a complete jerk. You throw a bunch of false innuendo at me about how I was disingenuous in my treatment of the Wilson report, and when it turns out to be completely bogus on your part, you keep right on going, pretending that I might have changed the essay out from under you.
I made a single change to my essay, to correct a spelling error and add a missing word or two, and did so within a few days of first posting my essay. You have a lot of nerve to continue to try and attack it with nothing but made up garbage that shows you either aren't capable of understanding it or you never read it in the first place.
The question of why Wilson's paragraphs weren't copied for the reader's perusal and understanding still stands however. Like you're doing with Alan Wilson above, where you tell us that Alan Wilson said that "Macdonald and Whigham were "PLANNING THE LAYOUT OF MERION EAST", here again you insist in your essay that Hugh Wilson's words aren't sufficient but instead need your edit, your characterization, your representation, and your interpretation.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have some sort of authority to tell me how I should have written my essay. This is laughable given the amount of irrelevant and nonsensical tripe you post on a daily basis. You've posted somewhere around 800 times on this thread alone. What are you accomplishing? How have you advanced the discussion? Why are you here but to act as a conduit for TEPaul's UNVERIFIED ramblings?
Rather than throw out your latest lame attempt to malign my reputation, why don't you go line-by-line in the Wilson essay, and tell me EXACTLY what I failed to address or accurately convey?
If you ever bother to read my essay carefully you will notice that I copied and addressed everything in the relevant section of the Wilson Essay, but did it piece by piece, so there could be no misunderstanding about any of it. To me that is a much better approach than just throwing up something that you and everyone else had misunderstood for years.
But you can't even accurately cut and past my discussion of the Wilson Article, so why would I expect you to be able to understand my treatment of it?
I'd also ask yet again why;
1) If you knew when you wrote your essay that the land for the golf course measured 122 acres, not 117 as represented in the accompanying letters with the November 1910 Land Plan why did you choose to not mention that? . . .
Why would I? The plan said APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE ROAD and I noted this. This kind of irrelevant distraction has no place in a coherent essay. I tried not to deal in irrelevant and unsupportable assumptions, so why would I make a big deal about an exact measure of a road that obviously wasn't meant to be measured exactly. That kind of nonsense is your bailiwick, not mine.
2) If you knew when you wrote your essay that the triangle of land on that November 1910 Land Plan didn't measure 130x190 as Francis had stated, but instead measured 100X327, why did you choose to not mention that, especially as you used it to offer the only physicial proof in your essay that the Francis Swap had to have happened prior to then. . . .
Again, why would I? See my answer immediately above. And I think you are wrong about your measure, by about 15-20 yards.
Finally, I'd simply ask, how do you interpret Hugh WIlson's statement that he and the others were appointed to a committee in early 1911 as him saying that he wasn't involved prior? Why do you think Merion would appoint someone who according to your essay had no involvement or knowledge prior and put him in charge of the Committee, OVER Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, and Toulmin?
Because all of the sources, including Wilson himself, say that he became involved in early 1911. NOT A SINGLE CONTEMPORARY SOURCE SAYS OR IMPLIES OTHERWISE. If you want to pretend otherwise WITHOUT BASIS, be my guest. I'll stick with the source material.
Why do you think they put Hugh Wilson in charge of the committee if he supposedly had no prior involvement. Just because you've found no evidence that he was involved prior to then, do you really believe that's reason to say the historical record indicates the Wilson had involvement prior to 1911 given his immediate appointment as Chairman immediately after the land purchase by Lloyd?
Probably because he was on the greens committee at Princeton, and they weren't giving him the level of responsibility that you think they gave him. And Yes, I do think that by noting his appointment, he was noting the beginning of his involvement. And I have no reason to believe that they immediately appointed him chairman. Do you?
IN FACT I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MERION'S BOARD APPOINTED HUGH WILSON TO DO ANYTHING INVOLVING THE DESIGN OF THE COURSE. MAYBE THE BOARD APPOINTED HIM ONTO A GREEN COMMITTEE, BUT I HAVENT SEEN EVIDENCE OF THIS. HAVE YOU? WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT MERION'S BOARD APPOINTED HUGH WILSON TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN OF MERION?