[Ian Larson]

Well! That's good enough for me! Thanks Phil.

[Tom MacWood]

Has the advertising brochure been presented on this thread?

[Tom MacWood]

MacWood

Is this amateur hour? Anyone who has done any moderate amount of study into Tilly knows he would always write articles in third person under a pseudo. Why did he not use Hazard above this article? I'm not sure. It may raise the question as to WHEN he started using Hazard. Not whether or not he designed Shawnee. When was Tillys first article like this written? Are there earlier ones than this? I'm not sure but I would say probably not because Shawnee was Tillys first project. So why would he be published before this?

You put emphasis on the first paragraph. The unnamed owner and Tilly the builder. We know damn well that's Worthington. It's not a mystery. Is it such an oddity that the owner of a property would walk with the designer to show him the land, get to know him and see what Tilly thought? Isn't that what happens even today? Does every Doak course get questioned because he walked with the owner around the property? No.

This was Tillys first attempt, I see nothing wrong or questionable about referring to himself as the builder. Think about it, he just got hired for his first project...what rookie guy would NOT be there everyday getting dirty and building it himself. Maybe he didn't consider himself a designer yet...but he knew he would damn well be building a course taken from his imagination. I agree, we don't know who wrote the caption. That could have been by the editor of the publication after Tilly wrote it. Maybe that caption is the first time Tilly was called a designer. But none the less, if he WASN'T the designer...I highly doubt Worthington would allow someone be titled something they're not in a national publication.

Was Tilly a modest man? At least in the very beginning? If so maybe that's why he preferred third person in his writings and as he continued writing he began to even use a pseudo. Tillys first project, probably some of his first writing, and you have an owner who entrusted his passion project to a rookie. That's pressure, and I think what you have is a passionate and eager young and modest Tilly working his ass off to make his first project a success.

I don't think this story is any different than with today's young designers who are on their own. So it's a HUGE stretch to prove that Tilly did not design Shawnee. Especially since the club has the minutes, as well as Phillip, that you don't have access to...to certify that Tilly was the designer of their course.

Interesting post...I suspect the reason or reasons you did not post the article are revealed within.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

This is the only time I will respond to any post that you make on this or any other thread with the exception of if you attack me as a person as you did earlier. You owe me a true apology for calling me a liar. Until you do so, acknowledging what you did, I will not answer any question you may have or respond in any way to whatever you may write.

And lest anyone think that this hasn't been said to Tom on this thread already, this is what I wrote in post #53:

"Tom, If you want an answer form me to any question then you must apologize for calling me a liar on this public forum. Don't and all you will get from now on is silence, something that I believe you actually will enjoy..."

So do not ask me anything else until you apologize...

[TEPaul]

Philip:

I'm glad to hear you won't be responding to Tom MacWood. Even if he does apologize to you for calling you a liar on here I hope you never respond to him again.

Ian, I suggest you do the same with MacWood. As you can see by his recent posts to you there isn't any point anyway.

The jerk is really on a roll recently. He called Phil a liar; he just accused me of having multiple personalities; he recently defamed the long time historian of Merion by calling him "the poster boy of unethical archivists."

I don't think any of us should provide this guy with any forum on here and I hope Mike Cirba stops responding to him on any thread in the future.

Just look at his ridiculous rationale about Tillinghast and Shawnee. The idiot doesn't even get what writing about yourself in the third person means. Tom MacWood cannot research or analyze his way out of a paper bag! Personally, I think the man is sick.

[Mike Cirba]

Just read the article for the first time this morning...

How someone could read about someone "constructing" a course where they talk about determining hazard placement and type and not recognize by this time that the word construction was used virtually synonymously and inclusively in those days to pertain to any number of tasks INCLUDING design at that time is beyond me.

George Crump in the beginning of 1913 before a single hole was designed at Pine Valley named his group the "Construction Committee", as did Merion with Hugh Wilson's committee.

And Why not?   They were planning to construct a golf course.   They weren't just charged with or intending to "design" a course.   It makes total sense yet has been bastardized here repeatedly, and yet again on this thread by those looking to interpret this article to prove that Tillinghast, an inexperienced novice at course design AND course construction, was not selected by CC Worthington to design and build his important golf course at Shawnee in 1909.

This article from 1916 shows more of how the term "constructed" was used, this time referring to the USGA ruling that made some men like Travis and "The Philadelphian", who was Tillinghast, into professionals for their architectural work.

Notice how the author only makes a distinction between "construction" which includes design and building...putting in the time necessary, versus those he seems to criticize for the limited value of their "paper jobs" that includes very little time on the property and no time spent in the construction process as was historically done by most of the foreign professionals.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
If you believe I called you a liar, I apologize. I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?

Phil-the-author
I've already apologized to you. If you want to behave like a child rather than accepting my apology like a man thats your decision. There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest, but I get the feeling from your last few posts you've decided hiding behind your injured pride is good spot for you. That is probably a wise decision.  

Mike
In your article I find it very interesting that the construction aspect is emphasized with several of those gents...in particular Tilly at Shawnee, Wilson at Merion and Crump at PV. Who wrote the article.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

You wrote, “Phil-the-author, I've already apologized to you. If you want to behave like a child rather than accepting my apology like a man that’s your decision. There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest, but I get the feeling from your last few posts you've decided hiding behind your injured pride is good spot for you. That is probably a wise decision.”

Tom, you did NOT APOLOGIZE nor did you ACKNOWLEDGE what you did.

I don’t know what world you live in but saying, and I’ve copied this directly from your earlier post and HIGHLIGHTED where necessary in hopes that even YOU can understand:

Phil-the-author
If you believe I called you a liar, I apologize. I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?

Your use of the word “BLUFFING” in this case is the same as calling me a liar. I have stated numerous times that I have copies of the internal club documents as well as the ORIGINAL ones in my personal possession and have them because the owners of Shawnee have hired me to write the 100-year anniversary book. I didn’t “IMPLY” anything. I was totally clear on this and stated it numerous times as well as that because the owners do not want me to put these records into the public eye I will NOT post any of them on here.

You stated above, “There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest…” So because YOU want me to BREAK my contract, and far more importantly, my WORD to those who trusted me with them, I should post them simply so that I can “put the bluffing accusation to rest”. In other words, to prove that I AM NOT LYING TO YOU i SHOULD LIE TO THOSE THAT TRUSTED ME WITH THIS?

Tom, by that you prove yourself to be a man without honor. It also shows exactly who is behaving like a child.

“Phil-the-author, If you believe I called you a liar…”  I not only believe it but so do the many who ALSO took you to task for calling me a liar. What, are they acting like children also?

“I apologize.” In what way is that an apology? You certainly don’t acknowledge having even done anything insulting, in fact, you DENY IT! “I don't believe I called you a liar. I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case…” Tom, NO ONE on here who either read the comments or who will read them now will state that I “IMPLIED” anything. The simple fact is that you won’t own up to what you did.

You insulted my honor. You spoke about acting like a child, yet a MAN would have said in the very beginning that “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to have offended you. I understand that you are NOT ALLOWED to post the documents and will have to wait until either they can be shared or the book comes out to verify  what you’ve said.”

No, all you could say was IF… I called you a liar… I DON’T BELIEVE I called you a liar.”

Finally, you stated that, “There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest…”

You are correct in this, in fact there are actually TWO ways that can “put the bluffing accusation to rest”. The first is to do what I encouraged YOU TO DO two other times already on this and the other thread which led to you beginning this one. I suggested that you call ROB HOWELL, manager at the Shawnee Inn and CC and ask him if I had the records. I told you then and I tell you again now that I haven’t spoken about this nonsense to him or the owner. I am certain that he will tell you that I have them because HE GAVE THEM TO ME HIMSELF! Go ahead, Tom, accuse that man of “BLUFFING” or are you afraid to simply make a simple phone call, one that will expose you for what you have done and what you are?

The second and easiest way to put an end to it, and one that should have been done from the very beginning, is to BELIEVE ME when I say I HAVE THEM in my possession. But that you won’t do because the implications of what it means that you should actually trust someone such as myself is too much for your ego to bear.

Tom, with every denial on your part you simply prove the truth of what I have said.

Acknowledge what you did and properly apologize. This is a question of honor; something I think is fairly obvious that you know little about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

We all go overboard from time to time, especially with topics we feel passionate about, which is unfortunate.

Can we get back to the subject of this thread ?

In reading every document/article offered, it would seem difficult to conclude that another party, especially one without any contemporaneous citation, designed and/or constructed Shawnee.

AWT seems to be THE MAN.

Do we have any documentation or articles specifically citing someone else as THE architect ?

[TEPaul]

"Phil-the-author
I've already apologized to you. If you want to behave like a child rather than accepting my apology like a man thats your decision. There is an easy way to put the bluffing accusation to rest, but I get the feeling from your last few posts you've decided hiding behind your injured pride is good spot for you. That is probably a wise decision."



Tom MacWood:

That remark of yours is just another reason neither Phil nor anyone else on here thinks you apologized. If one is really interested in apologizing for something they said that insulted or defamed someone else they generally make an apologize for it and then ask the person they insulted or defamed to accept their apology. When that is done the apology is complete and effective in the world I come from but perhaps it is different in your mind and your world. You seem to take the relatively simple act of an apology and just turn it into another opportunity to continue arguing with the person you insulted!    

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

That remark of yours is just another reason neither Phil nor anyone else on here thinks you apologized. If one is really interested in apologizing for something they said that insulted or defamed someone else they generally make an apologize for it and then ask the person they insulted or defamed to accept their apology. When that is done the apology is complete and effective in the world I come from but perhaps it is different in your mind and your world. You seem to take the relatively simple act of an apology and just turn it into another opportunity to continue arguing with the person you insulted!    

TEP
What the hell would you know about insulting and defaming people?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Rather than always answering posts with irrelevent questions don't you suppose you should concentrate on sticking to the matter at hand here----eg effectively apologizing to Philip Young with the thought of getting him to accept your apology?  

While you're at it why don't you apologize to Merion's historian for your character assasination of him on this website ("the poster boy of unethical archivists"  ) and particularly since he doesn't participate on here? The list is getting longer quickly of the people you need to apologize to including the Township manager of Merchantville NJ.

I would have to say that one should probably not think of you as unethical; it seems to be more a matter that you don't seem to even know what ethics are.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

Thank you for your well-meaning attempt to bring civility to this thread. You asked, “Can we get back to the subject of this thread?” That is actually the problem.

This thread was started as a direct attack against me for what I stated on the Top Courses thread. This is what Tom Macwood wrote in his opening post:

“Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?”

On the other thread I clearly stated that Tilly designed it, had no help in doing so, oversaw the construction and that EVERY contemporaneous article and writing stated the same thing and that Tilly HIMSELF had written it as well. In addition, I mentioned the documents in my possession from Shawnee. I was challenged on this and asked to prove it by posting them. I refused for reasons that I have stated quite clearly too many times and that you are aware. After calling me a liar on that thread, he started this one. With that background in mind then, reread what Tom actually wrote (my highlights):

“Phil-the-author, TEP, Mike and others have suggested Shawnee was a solo Tilly design. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I don't recall seeing anything that suggested that. Are there articles, internal documents or some other source that proves this?”

How disingenuous can you be? I had stated numerous times that there were internal; documents and records that prove it and now he’s once again asking for them as the basis for another thread after calling me a liar for having them?

No, Pat, this thread has been a personal attack from the very first post.

To answer your question, “Do we have any documentation or articles specifically citing someone else as THE architect?”

No, we don’t, and I include Tom the Mac in that as he has specifically stated in post #62 on this thread, “As I said before I have no idea who did what at Shawnee, and that was after reading that particular article…” (the Country Club Life article he claimed was the best source for information on the original design. I believe I’ve disproved that.)

Tom Paul, I know you are well-meaning in asking Tom Macwood about apologizing for his unwarranted and completely rude slandering of Jogn capers. That is a separate issue and should not be part of this discussion, especially as it only gives hiom the opportunity to ignore what he has been directly asked to do...

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, I know you are well-meaning in asking Tom Macwood about apologizing for his unwarranted and completely rude slandering of Jogn capers. That is a separate issue and should not be part of this discussion, especially as it only gives hiom the opportunity to ignore what he has been directly asked to do..."



Philip:

I understand what you are saying but this kind of thing with MacWood towards you on some recent threads on Shawnee is just one more in a whole list of threads over the last seven plus years that are exactly the same as this subject on Shawnee that MacWood started. This is what I go through with the likes of Merion and Myopia with MacWood and Moriarty and perhaps since this just happened with you from MacWood you can now appreciate it better. I've been accused of altering original Merion documents and of withholding evidence etc since I don't turn over to them what I have and the reasons I've always given for it are of no real difference than the reasons you gave MacWood about what you have and what you know on Shawnee. My relationship with Merion and Myopia isn't much different than yours is with Shawnee even though it seems just about impossible to get MacWood and Moriarty to understand or acknowledge that.

Their approach is to just throw threads on here with some bizarre alternative "THEORIES" on the histories of various clubs, and when those ridiculous theories are criticized they both then demand that all the private material from these clubs be turned over to them to prove their ridiculous alternative theories wrong. And the both of them constantly combine those demands on here with continuous statements that these clubs are only out to protect icons and their history books are works of fiction and fantasy or worse.

This is very much the fallacy of attempting to prove a negative wrong, and thankfully, at this point, they have both been called on it and censored on it by everyone who participates on any of those threads.

You're just the latest victim with something that has been going on with those two on here for over seven years, Philip.

But if you are asking me to stick to the subject of MacWood apologizing to you I'd be glad to and I completely support your request to get him to apologize to you for virtually calling you a liar on here. If you get his apology to your satisfaction I think you should tell him you accept it and then this too will pass.

However, I do renew my suggestion that nobody respond to MacWood on this kind of thread subject he so often starts and that way the guy will have no forum left for this kind of time-wasting garbage!
 

[DMoriarty]

Come on, Phil, grow up.  Tom MacWood not only apologized, he told you that he had no intention of calling you a liar.  By your logic, you must be calling Tom MacWood a liar because you refuse to believe him.   And if he disagrees, he would be calling you a liar for calling him a liar.  It gets pretty silly rather quickly.  

You cant take every disagreement as a personal insult, yet that is what you are doing here.  You did the same thing to me above . . . accusing me of calling you a liar because I corrected your understanding of MY INTENTIONS.   Tom MacWood told you his intentions.   Now let it go.

Rise above it and try to get back to substance.   It is pretty sad when there is a thread about Tillie and most of the substance has come from others rather than you.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

As happened earlier in this thread, it is YOU who are sticking your nose in this and so when I tell you are wrong you will once again cry "foul" that I am picking on you. Cut the crap.

As far as "most of the substance" coming from others in this thread, taht of course is ludicrous as well. I have citred NUMEROUS examples proving without any question that Tilly designed Shawnee by himself, including where he calls himself the "ARCHITECT of the course..."

No David, it is you who is simply trying to back up your friend. Tom Macwood DID call me a LIAR. He ADMITTED it MORE than ONCE. He refuses to apologize for having done so.

As far as my calling him a Liar, I would never do such a thing. I would always challenge someone who's word I doubted and who I thought was being disingenuous. I might do it something like this, as I did on the other thread where Tom was most disingenuous and I caught him at it red-handed. He never responded to it:

Tom the Mac,

I thought about it for a minute, and whether you answer my question or not is of no significance because there really is no way you can defend your statement in light of what Tilly was doing at Shawnee.

What I feel I must comment on is your insulting and sarcastic statement, "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"

NONSENSE!

If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #31 as you did in #35?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #37 as you did in #38?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #44 as you did in #45?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #46 as you did in #47?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my new comment in post #50 as you did in #52?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my comment which ONCE AGAIN contained the question you were ignoring in post #56 as you did in #57 while ignoring the question once again?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU respond to my reply to your #57 with an answer in #60, where I AGAIN asked the question, with a response in #62 where you once again ignored the question?
I responded in #67 and once AGAIN asked the question to which you SARCASTICALLY responded in #68 with "Thanks."

Who do you think you are kidding with "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"

So tell me David, based on the above, wouldn't you agree that Tom the Mac has been quite disingenuous in his statement to me? He NEVER responded to that and I've posted it to him several times now. He won't because he CAN'T. The truth is there for ALL to see.

No David, Tom is definitely wrong here and I won't relent in demanding he apologize for it. Sorry iof you don't like it and also if you don't like being told so. Then again, I only did because YOU stuck your nose in it yourself.

Now of course, if YOU really wanted to help settle this, and Tom was right when he said that there was a simple way to end this, YOU could do what I've suggested to Tom Macwood that he do at least three different times. It is such a simple thing, call Shawnee and speak to Rob Howell. He's the General manager and is the person who GAVE ME all the documents and access. Ask him if he did. Go ahead, and then tell all on here his answer.

Tom doesn't have the BALLS to do it and neither do you. Just as I haven't spoken to Rob about this thread or subject or Tom Macwood, ! haven't spoken to him about you either.

Go ahead and ask him, David. See if I'm "BLUFFING" about that as well.

[DMoriarty]

As I said Phil,  grow up.

[Phil_the_Author]

As I said, David, make the phone call and then tell all that I told the truth or simply keep your nose out of it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Since anyone who has read what has transpired on the other threads will understand, let me once again state that I had not wanted to post these because in doing so it can only embarrass Tom Macwood who called me a LIAR for stating that I had them earlier in this thread and refused to apologize.

I offered him an opportunity to apologize in private, actually sending him these as proof. He denies receiving the email and then had the AUDACITY to say on the other thread "Why don't you start a thread about that supposed email so I can ignore that too."

To recap then; I stated that I had all the original documents, board meeting minutes, paperwork, etc... from Shawnee as I have been hired by them to write a 100-year anniversary book. Tom called me a liar and demanded that I post them. I refused because my agreement with the owner was that I would keep them to myself until AFTER the book is released. That, of course was not good enough for Tom who called me a liar once again and even did so on another thread where he admitted doing it.

Because it is a point of personal honor, I received permission from those at Shawnee to post whatever I felt I must to prove what I had and clear my name of the slander that had been thrown my way. That is the only reason I am posting these now and they are the absolute and unarguable proofs that I have the documents in my possession.

The first is the COVER of the ORIGINAL BOARD MINUTES book. It actually details the very beginning of the Manwalamink CC the forerunner of the Shawnee CC:



This is the page that details the incorporating of the Manwalamink CC in 1900:



This is the page that details the name change and the legalities in doing so to the Shawnee CC in 1910:



So Tom, even YOU CAN'T SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE THEM!

I posted these when I didn't want to and never wanted to embarrass you by doing so, but you left me no choice.

Now, you owe me an admittance of what you did and a proper apology!

[Ian Larson]

Good stuff Phil....but I think they will STILL find a way to maintain their stance and not give you credit.

[Phil_the_Author]

I disagree Ian. Tom Macwood can only do one of two things on this thread. he can be a man and admit that he called me a liar, apologize for doing so and acknowledge that I have the records. or he can simply "IGNORE" this thread which is what he stated on the other one that he would do.

[Phil_the_Author]

I think it is quite clear now that Tom Macwood is NOT a man of his word. He stated in post #19 above "Shivas, Its pretty simple, either he has the documentation or he doesn't. I don't know how much effort you've put toward discovering what happened at Shawnee, I have done quite a bit of digging, and it doesn't appear to be the open and closed case Phil makes it out to be. If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post."

Now as all can see from what I posted above, I absolutely have the documents, records, board minutes and much more. I never BLUFFED, OBFUSCATED, TRICKED, MISSPOKE or the word that describes all of the above in the way that Tom Macwood accused me, LIED!

Tom, by your own words your complete ignoring of what has been presented both privately and publicly, rebuffing my efforts to settle this in private and now in public and completely ignoring WHAT YOU STARTED shows you to be a man of no character or class or honor.

It also shows that by not admitting your wrong and apologizing, YOUR statement "If Phil (or anyone else) does have the documentation this thread will be over quickly and the question will be put to rest once for all....and I'll erase my bluffing accusation/post will become a lie and prove you to be exactly what you accused me of doing...

Preserve even a tiny piece of your dignity and do so...

[Phil_the_Author]

One very last bump (I promise) in hopes that Tom Macwood will show some semblance of being a man and do the right thing...

[Tom MacWood]

I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case.

Phil-the-author
What was the purpose of posting those particular excerpts? Does it shed any light on who did what at Shawnee?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

"What was the purpose of posting those particular excerpts?"

It is beyond me how you can ask such a question. Wasn't it YOU who stated, "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?"

Maybe you don't remember what I responded because you "ignore" what I write; oh wait, I disproved that claim on the other thread, but we'll let that issue go for now. This is taken from YOUR OWN POST on the Top Courses thread which is where you FIRST called me a LIAR on this issue:

Quote from: Philip Young on September 14, 2010, 09:20:15 PM

You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.

The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.

I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee. [In case anyone is wondering that was your response]

Tom, to answer your question I presented those items for the following reasons:

1- They provide ABSOLUTE PROOF that my "claim" that I had and have the records from Shawnee are true! You can NOT deny what they are, the ORIGINAL Board Minutes from the Club!
2- The two pages that cite the creation of Manwalamink CC in 1900 and the renaming and restructuring into the Shawnee CC in 1910 were shown to prove that I had ALL the documents going back to DAY ONE!
3- I PURPOSEFULLY chose to post ONLY those three pages because any and all other documents which bear on the question can be seen, viewed or read about in the coming 100 year anniversary book next May.
4- On this thread you have admitted clearly that you have "no idea who did what at Shawnee" and yet there has been numerous proofs, including Tilly's OWN WRITTEN WORDS that he was "the architect of Shawnee" so that the need for me to produce "internal documents" are unnecessary. That is why I also won't post any and you'll have to wait until next May.
5- Nothing else is needed to prove that you were wrong.
6- You have no excuse to not apologize based upon them as they are exactly what you stated I didn't have and then asked for, "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case. Have you presented any internal club documents?"
7- Frankly, as your response here shows no remorse, embarrassment or admittance that you were wrong or even an intimation that you would even consider an apology, I expect that you will use the above as simply another arguing point.

Tom, in private emails to some who suggested, counselled and even told me that it was time to let this go I said that I would. That doesn't mean that I am rescinding my demand that you properly apologize; far from it! You owe me one and you should, if only for dignity's sake.n You should end this and admit what you did and properly apologize.

Let's also clear up a few minor points and answer a few other questions posed by you that are quite relevant.

YOU stated in your post quoting from yourself, "I said you were bluffing when you implied you had internal club documents/minutes that made your case."

Your numerous uses of the word "bluffing" is calling me a liar. This is not only my belief but a number of others who directly challenged you on it and SPECIFICALLY told you that you called me a "LIAR."

Secondly, and actually quite important as I believe you will try to wriggle out of what you've done by saying it is a misunderstanding or you didn't mean to imply that by your use of the word "bluffing": in the same sentence you state that I "IMPLIED" that I had "internal club documents/minutes that made my case."

I already answered this on the other thread, but since you bring this statement up once again, take another look at the SEVEN things that I reposted above which was in answer to your baseless charges on the other thread. How could any person with even a modicum of intelligence believe that when I state that I HAVE and YOU HAVE NOT mean that I am IMPLYING anything?

I stated quite clearly on numerous occasions that I had them and now I have proven it.

The questions you asked that need answering? Why after Ian challenged you on the other thread you answered him with the following:

"Ian Relax, I don't believe I told Phil to do anything. I asked him a question, actually two questions. Do you believe the internal club documents of Shawnee should be treated as some state secret? How many transformations has the resort had over the years, and is it even considered a private club today? Why would they care?"

Do you believe the internal club documents of Shawnee should be treated as some state secret?

No, I don't and do not treat them that way.

How many transformations has the resort had over the years, and is it even considered a private club today?

The RESORT has had at least 5 transformations over the years depending upon your definition of the word, but I don't believe that is really the question you meant to ask. The GOLF COURSE has undergone numerous "transformations" or redesigns which is also the word I believe you are looking for. Again, depending upon your definition of these terms, there are far too many to list here, though again, you'll see that question dealt with in May when the book comes out.

"Is it even considered a private club today?"

No, it isn't... because it has NEVER been a private club which certainly proves how very little you know about it. It is a RESORT and the RESORT owns a GOLF COURSE. The owner(s) of the RESORT also own the GOLF COURSE. The RESORT leases NON-EXCLUSIVE USE of the GOLF COURSE to the Shawnee Country Club. The RESORT also leases SPACE on the lower level of the SHAWNEE INN for use as the CLUBHOUSE for the SOLE use by MEMBERS of the SHAWNEE CC. The SHAWNEE CC is and has always been a PRIVATE CLUB.

Why would they care?

What business is that of yours? Why do YOU CARE that THEY care? Frankly you again don't even recognize ALL of those involved. First, the Shawnee Inn's records are separate and distinct from the Shawnee CC's records. The ownership of the Inn has records and documents that the Shawnee CC does not have and vice-versa. As such the records, documents, minutes, notes and letters are from a variety of owners, sources, etc..., each of whom have their own reasons for allowing or not allowing the publishing of what is THEIRS!

It's just too damn bad that you believe that you are entitled to see them when you won't even make a phone call to Shawnee to ask. I have told you numerous times who you should call yet YOU WON'T DO IT! Yet you have the audacity to publicly call me a liar, be given an opportunity to apologize privately, refuse to, and now, when you have nothing left to you but to simply admit you were wrong, you can't do it.

This is beyond pitiable...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()