TePaul,
At Merion, there weren't a lot of signed contracts. None for CBM of course, and even Barker seemed to come out for one day on a per diem basis before the project began. Just a few years later, things at NS were a lot more formal, with agreements in place for design, pro/greenskeeper, etc., which IMHO should make things a lot more clear than they were at the home made/amateur sportsman era, even if the proceedings were fairly well documented.
That said, when someone likes to argue, it is always the undocumented and the unclear that get the focus. As lawyers like to say, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, when the law is on your side, pound the law, and when neither are on your side, pound the table!
Watching the hockey games last night I heard an oft repeated statement by the announcers that players need to keep moving their feet or they get penalties for basically being a bit lazy. At this point, I think TMac has stopped moving his feet. If I were referee of this thread, TMac would get two minutes in the box!
While he is good at unearthing documents, he has stopped doing that, in essence, hooking on to one or two unclear documents to make a point, rather than finding any good info to make his point, or visiting the course to see what is really there. There are logistical reasons for that, but I don't think he cares enough about the subject (neither do we) to really pursue it in a correct way, like Mark Hissey did in unearthing new documents from the archives that for whatever reason, never were looked at in attributing the course. Which is what makes the continuing argument ridiculous on all our parts. This thread was great in unearthing the real designer of NS to correct past misconceptions, and the historical work was done the correct way, which somehow, hasn't made a difference in how we interact.
Going back to the lawywer analogy, I look at most of what TMac has presented here as deflecting tactics. It is true that White had previous and later experience in design, but that was elsewhere. It is true that he also spent a lot of time researching turf and agronomy leading him to be involved in construction a lot. It is true that there are some attribution issues at other courses. My point is that TMac is using flaws and facts at other places to make an argument specifically for NS and considering that as a logical, unemotional approach, while we are all supposedly emotionally attached to legends. So, he ignores (except for one post, which he seems to forget) the primary data such as contracts that show who did what at NS, and will likely continue to argue, because there can be endless deflection based on each new sentence found to parse.
So, we can't win unless Tom Doak blows the place up, in which case, we can then attribut the new course to him.........although TMac will probably still claim it should be an Emmet design because there may be one blade of grass untouched somewhere.....sometimes, you can just want to cut the beef to thin, and I think this is a case of that.