[Patrick_Mucci]

.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I disagree with you on numerous accounts there.

If there is one thing I really detest is the constant use of the word "disingenous" on these threads. It is really insulting, and truly elevates the acrimony.  Its not like this is a trial or congressional hearing.  Let's face facts, you are calling him a liar, which isn't nice, or condusive to discussion.

When Mike introduced his theory of a potential offer on an unknown site, he did present some new articles (maybe just to him) and analysis of those.  I recall Tom MacWood telling us that when he presented theories he didn't need to back them up, and I don't recall you or David thrashing him for that, even though its about the same as what Mike is doing.  This battle is nothing more than another version of that, but from someone who generally disagrees with you.

Let's face it, Mike's treatment is just a decision by you and David to be mean spirited. Period.

You in fact, have presented more red herrings, repetitive and obviously false statements on this thread than Mike ever has.  Taking dashed line dirt roads and calling them highways, telling Mike he has posted incorrect maps that were really David's, insisting it was a days work to route the course, etc. which shows me you are more interested in the argument than finding out facts, and in pushing your man crush on CBM to prove he did route Merion in a day (which is wrong, BTW) much more than Mike.

For that matter, you continue to deliberately misreprsent things in the post above. I have repeatedly agreed with you that Mike is wrong on the idea of some mystery site not described in Scotland's Gift. I have never asked you to accept anything, and yet you put that trashy little sentence in at the end, that is 100% false.

And I didn't tell David you guys were the only reason this was long.  I just said Mike isn't the only reason.

As usual, for all the mess, I learned something on this thread.  Bryan and others bringing back douments I had forgotten (like the HJW euolgy) which suggests the initial tour ofthe Sebonac site was in Sept 1906 was invaluble in forming my opinion of what happened.    There is really no reaons for me to want to know that, but I am always intersted in history, just for curiosity sake..

Others may disagree with my take, but it little matters, really. I wanted to get a better sense of how a great course came to be, and I think I have it.

So, why would I be interested in the arguments and insults many here are throwing around because of a few disagrements?

Short version: I call BS on your last post.  But, have a great day, and I hope you are feeling better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I disagree with you on numerous accounts there.

If there is one thing I really detest is the constant use of the word "disingenous" on these threads. It is really insulting, and truly elevates the acrimony.  Its not like this is a trial or congressional hearing.  Let's face facts, you are calling him a liar, which isn't nice, or condusive to discussion.


That's correct.

When maps from 1873, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1907 show the existance of the North Highway, and the New York State Senate documents show the existance of the North Highway, and Mike claims that in 1914 the North Highway didn't exist, that's DISINGENUOUS.  It's lying.
I don't care whether you like it or not.  You're in denial.  Mike knew the North Highway existed, he saw the source documentation, but, in an effort to put forth his stated agenda, declared that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914.  That's a blatant lie.  Calling it disingenuous was being polite on my part.

My newest (architectural) fantasy is to get you on the witness stand, present five (5) seperate, clear photos, from different angles, of Mike Cirba robbing a bank (he's wearing a TEPaul mask, but, he's got it on backwards) and asking you if you see the same person in all five (5) photos.
Then, I'd present a notorized copy of the bank President's affadavit, stating that he's personally done business with Mike for the last 20 years,  and yes, he was talking to him in the lobby, with the mask of TEPaul turned around backwards, when he pulled out a water pistol and pointed it toward the teller's window.

And, I'd ask you again, is that Mike Cirba.

No doubt, you'd attack me for putting facts in front of you that you'd want to deny, facts that you'd need to deny, because you thought about robbing the same bank yourself, albeit with a Wayne Morrisson mask.[/b]

When Mike introduced his theory of a potential offer on an unknown site, he did present some new articles (maybe just to him) and analysis of those.  I recall Tom MacWood telling us that when he presented theories he didn't need to back them up, and I don't recall you or David thrashing him for that, even though its about the same as what Mike is doing. 


Then your recall isn't what you think it is.
I've challenged Tom MacWood on a number of his presentations.
Please stop with the absurd "double standard" defense, it's not applicable.

Mike has contradicted himself as much as David and I have contradicted him.

You have an issue with David and Tom.
I sometimes disagree with David and Tom, but, there's a distincition between an issue and a disagreement.[/b]

This battle is nothing more than another version of that, but from someone who generally disagrees with you.

That's not true in the least.
Mike and I often agree on issues.
It's that idiot savant, TEPaul who disagrees with me 98.6 % or is it 96.8 % of the time.
[/b]

Let's face it, Mike's treatment is just a decision by you and David to be mean spirited. Period.

That's absolutely untrue.
I've posted that I like Mike, but that I have a problem with him on this thread.  A problem with his presentation, agenda, facts and flawed conclusions.

You in fact, have presented more red herrings, repetitive and obviously false statements on this thread than Mike ever has. 

That's also UNTRUE.
Would you list the red herrings I've presented

Taking dashed line dirt roads and calling them highways, telling Mike he has posted incorrect maps that were really David's, insisting it was a days work to route the course, etc. which shows me you are more interested in the argument than finding out facts, and in pushing your man crush on CBM to prove he did route Merion in a day (which is wrong, BTW) much more than Mike.

This shows how really biased, if not stupid you've become on this thread.

It was MIKE who posted the Olmsted Bros plan that LABELED THE NORTH HIGHWAY, THE NORTH HIGHWAY, NOT ME.
Map after Map, New York State Senate documents in 1906 refer to the road as the NORTH HIGHWAY, but you, in your arrogance, claim that I labeled the road the North Highway.

Do me a favor, have someone, someone intelligent, read the posts to you, because you don't get it.
I didn't make up the name, The NORTH HIGHWAY.  It was on the maps that MIKE posted.  It was in the New York State Senate document that Phil Young posted.  So how do you get off stating that I'm the one that named the road ??  Your bias and your emotions have overriden your intellect.[/b]

For that matter, you continue to deliberately misreprsent things in the post above.

How so ?
Be specific ![/b]

I have repeatedly agreed with you that Mike is wrong on the idea of some mystery site not described in Scotland's Gift.

I have never asked you to accept anything, and yet you put that trashy little sentence in at the end, that is 100% false.

Are you nuts ?
The last sentence of my last post references Mike and Max Behr.
it's got nothing to do with you.[/b]

And I didn't tell David you guys were the only reason this was long.  I just said Mike isn't the only reason.

Of course he is.
If Mike didn't make outrageous, erroneous posts, David, myself and others wouldn't have to question and refute them.[/b]

As usual, for all the mess, I learned something on this thread.  Bryan and others bringing back douments I had forgotten (like the HJW euolgy) which suggests the initial tour ofthe Sebonac site was in Sept 1906 was invaluble in forming my opinion of what happened.    There is really no reaons for me to want to know that, but I am always intersted in history, just for curiosity sake..

I agree, that would seem to be an interesting item.

But, is HJW's word in that piece to be taken as the Gospel, for if so, then we must accept that CBM routed/designed Merion.... yes ?


Others may disagree with my take, but it little matters, really. I wanted to get a better sense of how a great course came to be, and I think I have it.

I share that desire, but, not when presented by someone with a predetermined agenda rooted in Merion.

So, why would I be interested in the arguments and insults many here are throwing around because of a few disagrements?

I think you initiated the insults toward me.
I still have your apology, which I accepted(;
[/b]

Short version: I call BS on your last post.  

The entire post ?  ?  ?
Shirley you jest.[/b]

But, have a great day, and I hope you are feeling better.

The surgery appears to have gone well, but, we won't know until the post-op evaluations are in.
Thanks[/b]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Stopped reading your post halfway through. What's the point? Not going to argue endlessly on a post about arguing endlessly.

I will say, BTW, that David's last map concering the road may have changed my opinion, although the other maps sure didn't show a highway there.  I am not going to spend much time figuring it out, since its irrelevant except over on roadsoflongisland.com, but you might have been right.  Might.

Edit: 5PM and I took a minute to read your post, and go back to where this derailed (maybe this should be posted on that Chambers Bay thread.....) It went to hell in a handbasket (or maybe Merion wickerbasket) in posts 62-68.  David was his usual insulting self before that, but Jim Kennedy reacted to Mikes post 62, where after two dozen paragraphs, mostly true, mentions that he doesn't think CBM was a fan of the one day routing, using CBM writings from 1897 to back up his point.

Is that where you say Mike stated his agenda?  It seems Jim Kennedy stated it for him, and then you jumped on the bandwagon quick.  The whole tone went downhill after that.  It was civil before.

Just saying.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I too have learned alot on this thread.

I'm going to start two tangential threads on NGLA soon.

Let's just say that we disagree on some issues and agree on others.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

"Morrisonesque"?   

David,

"Faker Document"??


Guys..transparent jealousy really doesn't wear well on anyone.   You should really go write your own version of history if that's your thing.

TMac...I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;

1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process.   It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.

2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.

3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.

4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.

5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.

6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.

7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.

Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.

I'm not sure why David and Patrick want to argue with CBM but that's what they've been doing...you'll have to ask them.

Mike
After 28 pages of posts which of these points have you been able to prove?

[DMoriarty]

But, don't kid yourself.  That persistence isn't the ONLY reason this thread is so long.  We all parse words, we all analyze. I was able to sum up the disagreements in a short post above.  Both you and Pat probably have 5 pages each of posts telling everyone how bad Mike is in your eyes, whereas if you could just stick to facts and not diatribe it would be much shorter. Mike may be wrong, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the treatment you give him, and the only reason he gets treated that way is because you and Pat declare that it should be so.

There may be some truth to some in what you wrote, and it is certainly worth considering.  And while Mike is driving these threads with his ever changing interpretations, I'll concede that a bit less from me about the nature of Mike's games would probably shorten the threads, at least initially.  Same goes for a substantial portion of the excess from Mike's posts and yours as well, but you have a habit of overlooking Mike's rude digressions as well as your own.  
- Does it really advance the conversation or shorten the threads when Mike falsely boasts about how I have been proven wrong "again and again" while every single one of his claims has been supported by the facts?  
- Does it really advance the conversation or shorten the threads when he repeatedly misrepresents my position as well as the source material?
- How about when he refuses to even address legitimate critiques of his position, or to answer questions, or to back up his own assertions?
- Or when he switches positions so he can avoid answering my questions by declaring them "beyond stupid and insulting" based on his formerly rejected position?
- Or how about your insulting comments to me and about me or your lectures and commentary on my behavior?  Do you think that advances the conversation or shortens the thread?   I don't.  

So while I will consider less commenting and more substance, I'll take my present ratio of substance-to-excess over his or yours any day.

And Jeff, I disagree with your assessment that Mike does not deserve my comments or critique.  Whether flattering or not, my comments about Mike are accurate and the go to the substance of the matter as well as his ability to deal with it. He brings my commentary on himself through his behavior and his claims.  

What it comes down to is that he is either unwilling or unable to carry on a reasonably intelligent conversation or to stay above board regarding his representation of the various positions and the source material.   Even you must realize that this is the case.  Or did you not notice that last night Mike told me that he hasn't even suggested that those articles refer to the Canal land, and then, a few posts later he turned and told you the opposite?

Surely these are not honest and accurate representations, are they?  It wouldn't advance the conversation to allow Mike to just continue on with such contradictory positions to suit his rhetorical needs?  Yet that is exactly what you do, and apparently what you expect of me!   Isn't it about time you started calling him out for such foolishness
________________________________


As for Mike's agenda, it goes back most recently to the Myopia threads where he tried to make that too about Merion via NGLA.   Before that there have been at least three or four threads which started substantially like this one and in which Mike was selling similar ideas.   If you don't believe he had an agenda coming in then return to his ridiculous and misrepresentative attempt at an IMO early on in this thread.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Fair enough and its not that I don't understand where you disagree with Mike, or your frustration at covering different topics like the "third site" repeatedly.  And I agree he and I have taken some subtle shots at you and Pat (or not so subtle) so we are all to blame.  What proves it was someone other than the main participants bringing back the HJW euolgy, while we all continued to repost the same old documents.  (To be fair, you have provided some old road maps the may change my thinking, but its an unrelated point, at least to me)

Truthfully, and as I have said before, I am most frustrated with Pat's quick routing ideas.  First, nothing in the record suggests it, and relying on Behr's later recollections, as a non participant, and in an article about another topic, seem really off to me, yet he keeps pounding that table and presenting that as some kind of proof of something. 

And I did ask him which day he thought CBM routed Merion, with no response.  Was it June 29, 1910, with no topo maps in front of him, or was it March 1911, when they spent the weekend at NGLA with him?  As far as I know, only you believe CBM routed Merion by himself, and I don't recall you contending it was done in a day, only in the period from June to Nov 1910, in time to set the road. 

Call me crazy, and perhaps its as much because the notion of courses routing themselves offends me professionally, but in the context of these discussions over the years, it just doesn't fly, and bothers me more than Mike postulating about where the initial CBM offer might have been.

[Mike Cirba]

Wow...we're talking golf courses here, fellows.

Sheesh.

Ok...a few points.

First, one of the things that makes us human is our ability to take in and process new information and evidence and consider those factors and re-shape existing ideas and opinions.   Some here might want to try that rather than regurgitating disproven and/or unfounded dogma for 20 pages.  

Second, there is no inconsistency in what i presented.   I first considered that the land seemingly described in those October articles was possibly a third site, but the more I studied it, the more I have come to believe (and SPECULATE) that it was indeed the land described by CBM in his book as "near the canal".   I also believe his offer took place after his return from abroad in 1906, and not 1905.   I did describe the reasons why I believe this in my post #911 a few days ago but it likely got lost in the noise and continuing personal insults so I can understand how many might have missed it.

I'm not sure how speculation on known facts, even if shown to be incorrect, or perhaps even on something we might never know, is suddenly off-limits on this site, and verboten?   Aren't we supposed to be "discussing" these topics, or is this a religious monastery where deviation from some accepted topics is punishable by public humiliation and verbal stoning?

I don't believe the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal as David seems to, which is why I joked to him that he now has a highway running through his site per his 1907 map.   I think CBM just used that as a landmark, which in the midst of not much development at the time it certainly was, and the site I described is miles nearer the canal than the site he ended up with.

But, it's what I believe and speculate based on my understanding of the evidence and I have a friggin' right to say it here despite your efforts to drown me out.

This isn't Iran fellas, and you guys hopefully aren't mullahs.

[Andy Hughes]

Acceptance and Dedication of
North Highway and St. Andrew's Road : Upon the dedication and release of the lands within the highway on Shinnecock Hills known as North Highway and part of St. Andrew's Road for use as a public highway, and upon the consent of the Town Board of the Town of Southampton, etc., hereto annexed, I do order that North Highway and part of St. Andrew's Road, as described in the dedication and release. aforesaid, executed and acknowledged by Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company, Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Samuel L.Parrish, A. H. Buck, and the Long Island Railroad Company, be accepted and laid out as a public highway in the Town of Southampton, etc. The said highway is bounded and described as follows : The roads on Shinnecock Hills, Town of Southampton, known as North Highway and part of St. Andrew's Road described as follows : Beginning at a monument marked 322, said monument being in the Northerly boundary line of the land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. running thence North 75° 07' RECORDS: TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON llS 20" West 503.9 feet to monument 321; thence- North 69° 02' 20" West 313.1 feet to monument 320; thence South 82° 30' 40" West 296.5 feet to monument 319; the above course being along the Northerly line of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, thence North 85° 12' 20" West 51.93 feet to monument 294, the last course being across the Tucka· hoe road ; thence on the same course 637.5 feet to monument 300, thence North 73° 02' 20" West 306.4 feet to monument 299, thence North 72° 51' 50" West 122.05 feet ; thence North 76° 56' 20" West 161.44 feet ; thence North 80° 32' West 71.35 feet, thence North 88° 30' West 187.78 feet to Station No. 1, thence North 64° 22' 30" West 97.3 feet; thence North 40° 21' 40" West 98.03 feet; thence North 59° 21' 40" West 57.32 feet to Station X, the above courses being along the Northerly boundary line of the land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The foregoing describes the Southerly line of the St. Andrew's Road. The Notherly line being 50 feet distant and parallel to the Southerly line. Beginning at Station X in the Southerly line of the said Saint Andrew's Road, running thence North 55° 23' 36" West 86.95 feet across Saint Andrew's Road; thence on the same course along the Northerly boundary line of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company 69.42 feet to Station No. 2, thence North 39° 53' West 137.35 feet to Station No. 3, thence North 20° 42' West 472 feet to Station No. 4, thence North 42° 26' West 143.3 feet to Station No. 5, thence North 76° 36' 30" West 399.00 feet to Station No. 6, thence North 65° 31' West 399.64 to Station No. 7, thence North 61 ° 24' West 428.22 to Station No. 8, thence North 69° 51' West 379.82 feet to Station No. 9, thence North 83° 17' 30" West 661.21 feet to Monument H. 12, thence North 72° 28' West 210.21 feet to manument H. 13, thence North 70° 40' 50" West 309.5 feet to 114 RECORDS; TOWN OF' SOUTHAMPTON monument H. 14, thence North 72° 00' West 219.75 feet to Station No. 10, thence North 75° 22' West 491.52 feet to monument H. 15, thence North 79° 44' 28" West 338.9 feet to monument H. 16, thence North 83° 02' 30" West 5 10.73 feet to Monument H. 17, thence North 85° 14' 30" West 530.25 feet to Station No. 12, thence North 88° 40' West 70.33 feet to the intersection with the Easterly line of the Hills Station Road ; thence on the same course 50.42 feet across the said Hills Station Road; thence on the same course 217.17 feet along the Northerly boundary line of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company to monument H. 23 ; thence North 88° 14' West 251.4 feet to monument H. 24; thence North 87° 53' 30" West 819.41 feet to monument H. 25, thence North 84° 19' 52" West 465.98 feet to monument H. 26, thence North 80° 28' 12" West 402.13 feet to monument H. 27, thence North 75° 30' 30" West 225.87 to Station No. 15, thence North 68° 28' 30" West 271.75 to monument H. 28, thence North 66° 01' 55" \Vest 771.98 feet to monument H. 29, thence North 58° 21' West 574.1 feet to Station No. 17, thence North 65° 30' 30" West 183.5 feet to Station No. 18, thence North 86° 02' 30" West 192 feet to monument H. 30, thence South 71 ° 27' 30" West 242.3 feet to Station No. 19, thence S:outh (1)0 45' West 246.35 feet to monument H. 31, thence South 54° 50' West 190.95 feet to Station 20, said station being at the intersection of the Easterly line of the Peconic Road, thence on the same course 104.09 feet across said Peconic Road, thence on the same course 36.11 feet along the Northerly boundary line of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company to Monument H. 32, thence South 62° 50' 30" West 413.83 feet to Monument H. 33. thence South 72° 20' 30" West 375.45 feet to monument H. 34, thence South 86° 03' 30" West 437.42 feet to Monument H. 35, thence North 80° 45' West .256.85 feet to Monument H. 36, thence North 58° 26' 30'" West 488.55 to Monument H. 37, thence North 59° 03' 30" West 250.18 to Monument H. 38, thence North 73° 26' West 192.78 feet to Monument H. 39, thence North 86° IS' 19" West 333.33 feet to Monument H. 40, thence South 85° 43' 30'" West 429.22 feet to Station No. 22, thence South 77° 13' 30'" West 233.8 feet to Monument H. 41, thence South 71° 00' 30'" West 355 feet to Monument H. 42, thence South 67° 06' West 231.18 feet to Monument H. 43, thence South 66° 47' 42" West 502.58 feet to Monument H. 44, thence South 64° 58' West 204.28 feet to Station No. 24, thence South 56° 14' West 337.43 feet to Station No. 25, thence South 56° 19' West 156.02 feet to Station No. 26, thence South 44° 46' West 156.98 feet to Station No. 27, thence South 30° 07' 59" West 444.73 feet to Station No. 29 the course also crossing the right of way of the Long Island Railroad, thence South 25° 07' West 161.08 feet to Monument H. 48, thence South 15° 28' 30" West 154.35 feet to Station No. 30, thence South 15° 48' 30'" East 100 feet, thence South 3° 59' 30" East 100 feet, thence South 16° 55' 30'" West 50 feet, thence South 36° 55' 30" West 80 feet, thence South 56° 55' 30" West 57 feet to the Northerly line of the South Highway, the above describes the Southerly line of the North Highway, the Northerly line being 66 feet distant and parallel to the Southerly line going East to a point opposite Station No. 2, from this point the width of the road decreases until the said Northerly line intersects the Northerly tine of the Saint Andrew's Road at a point opposite Station X.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Is this the dedication to build the highway?    Is it dated??

It does seem to mention that it was north of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club boundary.

Thanks for posting it.

[Andy Hughes]

Mike, it's from 1913.  It can be found here: http://www.southamptontownny.gov/filestorage/760/762/792/1054/2530/BK-08.pdf

It's titled "The Eighth Volume of Records of the Town of Southampton   1893--1927" and is an official publication of the town.
Inner page calls it 'A Record of Highways of the Town of Southampton, NY  Liber A'  

Turns out there were a lot of highways in that area but it appears what they called a highway and what we would call a highway may not have been the same thing.  There's also early mentions of a surveyor named Raynor.  

PS I should add, I am not looking to pick a fight with anyone about the roads, where they were, what they cut through or didn't cut through; I just thought some might find it of interest as I did.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Thanks...yes, the "highways" out there hardly seem to have been deemed as permanent unmovable obstructions, especially when trying to best develop thousands of acres as a millionaire's playground.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Had an interesting thought last night, about restarting this thread from the basics.

Can we agree that NGLA exists?  Seems like the natural starting point, maybe even extend that to "exists on Long Island."  If we can get by that hurdle, maybe we can move on to more specific agreements.

Cheers to all, and especially Patrick who is still recovering.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I had an interesting thought as well.

At the moment I posted those articles on the first page and some argued that multiple, contemporaneous, and even same-day news articles in competing papers all saying the same thing was all lies, lies, and more lies, or even better, that we couldn't interpret those articles for ourselves and needed to be all told what they said by someone with greater knowledge, intelligence, and understanding, then I should have just had a good laugh and moved on because you really can't convince anyone who refuses to learn.    

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Since you are always so keen on critiquing my methods, perhaps you can help me more productively deal with Mike and his methodology?   Have you read Mike's post above where he tries to explain why he is telling you one thing, and me the opposite?    According to Mike, I seem to "believe the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal," and this is why Mike "joked" with me about my blowup from the map.    

But is this an honest and accurate assessment of our earlier exchange, or an honest, accurate, and reasonable depiction of his claim?   Let's take a closer look.  

My Post.  As you may recall I posted the entire map from the 1907 Atlas covering the "Far Part" of Long Island, along with a blowup I had created of the section of the map from Good Ground to the eastern edge of Bullshead Bay.  I accompanied it with a synopsis of the driving directions from the Canal to Shinnecock from the same book.  This was the post that apparently convinced you that there was a road going through the area of Mike's mystery site.  

Mike's response. After some deflections about the highway disappearing and such, Mike commented as follows:

And that blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested.   Are you trying to show how much traffic CBM would have had to contend with if his first offer to Alvord referenced in SG was accepted??

Say goodnight, David.

As you can see
- Mike acknowledged that map is of the area NEAR THE CANAL.
- His next sentence further leaves no doubt that we are talking about the land NEAR THE CANAL "referenced in SG," the land relating to CBM's "first offer."  
- He claimed that the land he suggested was not NEAR THE CANAL.
- He even scoffed at me by throwing in that smarmy last sentence, as if by posting that 1907 Atlas showing a road through the land NEAR THE CANAL I had somehow conceded the argument or proven his point for him.  

Mike's Contradiction.  A few posts later Mike told you the opposite, and I called him on it.  We've covered that.

Mike Excuse.  Since I called him on it, Mike is now trying to explain away his previous comment.  Again, according to Mike, he joked with me about my blowup because "I seem to "believe the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal."  Huh?  

Compare Mike's excuse to his comments above, and please answer the following:
-Have I ever suggested that CBM's first site "was actually right over the top of the canal?"
-Did the map and blowup I produced suggest this, or that I thought this?
-Looking at what he originally wrote, does Mike's excuse make any sense?
-Is Mike being HONEST here?  
-Is he ACCURATELY AND REASONABLY explaining his prior statement?

As importantly:
- What is a reasonable response to this kind of thing, especially when it happens again and again?  
- If you are truly interested in advancing the conversation, shouldn't YOU and everyone else be calling "bullshit" loudly and clearly?

There are other misrepresentations in that post about what and when Mike has claimed in the past, but I haven't got all day and hopefully you get the picture.

I'd appreciate an answer to my questions above, Jeff, because maybe I am missing something.  I know you don't like words like "disingenuous" or "delusional" so I will be more straightforward than that.    It seems to me like Mike is lying through his teeth to try and save face.   If he is not, and he actually believes what he is writing, then he may be mentally incapable of carrying on a reasonable conversation.

[DMoriarty]

Many pages ago I addressed why I did not think those October articles could possibly have been describing the land "near the canal."   Here is part of that post, with a few changes:

DID THE OCTOBER ARTICLES DESCRIBE THE 120 ACRE PARCEL NEAR THE CANAL?

1. The acreage is way off.  The acreage is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.

2. The timing is way off.  CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905.  This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period, or at the very least earlier, rather than later, in 1906.  CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap.  Plus, CBM wasn't a fool.  I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way.      

3.  The outcome is way off.   CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected.  Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had secured the property.  While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later.  Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad.   It sounds like whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location.  This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected.  

Also, later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed.  

4. The location is way off.  The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal."  The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east.  The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course.  No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course.  This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description.  The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal.

5.  Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course.  Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC.  He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land, about three miles fro SHGC.  It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property.   Early in the process CBM did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.  This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land as adjacent to the golf course.
______________________________________________

Mike is now claiming,
"CBM just used [the canal] as a landmark, which in the midst of not much development at the time it certainly was, and the site I described is miles nearer the canal than the site he ended up with."

I am not even sure if understand this?  How can a site described as "adjacent to SHGC" also be miles nearer to the Canal than the site CBM ended up with?  Has Mike lost track of his own argument again?  

Mike's claim that the October articles described the land near the canal makes no sense for the reasons listed above, not the least of which is that the October articles described the land ADJACENT TO SHINNECOCK HILLS GOLF COURSE which was about three miles from the Canal.

Judging from his recent posts, Mike seems to think that we ought to just accept his ideas and theories, whether they make sense or not.  But as I have said to Jeffrey Brauer, not all ideas and analysis are created equal.  We need to discard the ideas and analysis that don't make sense, and MOVE ON.  We cannot just endlessly circle back to these discarded ideas every time they are convenient to some rhetorical point Mike is trying to make.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

As I once relayed, I recall being on a jury where part of our verdict was a result of not liking the lawyers style, which is too factual.  Doesn't sound right, but bedside manner (to mix metaphors) is everything.

To sum up, I agree with many of your points. I asked Mike a few direct questions and got varying answers.  As he has said he is trying to flesh out an opinion on some vague notion that the wording in those articles bothers him.  He is likely wrong.  IMHO, when he makes a smart remark to you, he is saving face, but he is not necessarily lying.  That is simply you and Patrick applying negative motives to him, based on past animosities. Just my take.

But, there you go again, a lengthy response not really addressing facts, but Mike's motives.  Let's do what you say, discard stuff and move on.  Simple question, with no recriminations for any response, speculation or otherwise - When and where do you think that first offer was made? 

As I have said, rereading HJW eulogy, makes me think now that it was after return in June 1906 rather than 1905.  In a way, we have all agreed that CBM wouldn't let his best opportunity go, but then, if he had made the first offer in 1905, in essence he would have done just that, no?

As to where, it seems anyones guess.  Bahto says it was SH golf club itself. Interesting, but not near the canal.  Don't know what the acreage was, and it sounds as if it would have been leased land, not owned from his account.  Mike's speculation is kind of near the canal, but has some flaws.  At times, I have wondered if it was actually west of the canal, which also seemed to have less development plans. 

I would love an educated guess from you.  If you have no interest in guessing, I understand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Map from the 1907 Automobile Blue Book.  

   
This is the add for the Shinnecock Inn, the one that burned down, according to Mike Cirba, in 1908
Could someone please tell me on what road it is sited in 1908 and earlier ?  ?  ?
Could someone tell me which highway the visitor is instructed to take ?
Is it the NORTH HIGHWAY ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Well, its the NEW north highway, which also jives with what Phil posted a while back.  And, it makes perfect sense that with the Realty Co finally making plans to develop a long dormant area, that the highway would be developed.  It also says "roads built by the company" which suggests it wasn't built until after they acquired the land, and also jives with those reports from Phil that there was question whether the road was private or public.

So, the road was built by the real estate company concurrent with CBM's search for land.  He made an offer somewhere, perhaps not knowing of the road plans and was rejected because plans were too far along (road and lot plans)  The whole argument presumes that CBM was aware of their plans when he made the offer, but I don't actually recall that being established.

Or, his offer was actually west of the canal, out of the roads way, and rejected for other reasons.

As David says, lets move on.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I'll be glad to address the facts and I did. (Did you not see my last post or did you just choose to ignore it?)  But given that you have seen fit to repeatedly lecture me on how I should treat Mike, I'd like to flesh out this issue a bit further.    

You seem to be delicately dancing around the issue here, even suggesting that you are trying to side with Mike because you don't like me or my methods.  Like I hadn't figured that out.   But why don't you quit mincing words, and just answer my questions?   Let me narrow it down for you:
- Was Mike's explanation about his duplicitous post to me HONEST, ACCURATE, AND REASONABLE?  
- If not, then why are you scolding me for trying to set the record straight?  
- Do you really think I should just pretend (like you do) that Mike isn't repeatedly posting things that we know are FALSE?

In other words, isn't "varying answers" just a euphemism for "lies" or at the very least "falsehoods."  Don't Mike's "smart remarks to save face" usually involve similar "falsehoods?" Or, if he is not intentionally being dishonest, the what the hell is it?  Why does he repeatedly post false and misleading information?  Is he incompetent?  Is he delusional?  Why can't he even keep his own story straight?  

Is it too much to expect a certain level of honesty, accuracy, and consistency in these conversations?

Look at his explanation above for his duplicitous comments to us.  You must know that he is falsely representing what happened on both counts!   So what is going on here, and how am I supposed to respond to such repeated nonsense?  
    

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I did see your last post (meaning the second to last, with a rehash in blue).  What I read was a lot of reasons the site wasn't as Mike suggested.  What I asked was where then, do you think it was. If I missed that answer in a quick read, I'm sorry.

As to Mike, sometimes, when a guy is trying to save face, have you ever considred just letting him back out gracefully, rather than pounding him into submission? 

[DMoriarty]

Jeffrey Brauer, 

The problem with that approach is that this is far from a one time occurrence.  The falsehoods just keep coming, so I hardly think that gracefully letting him back out is a realistic or productive option, especially when we both know that Mike will circle back to the same false information next time it suits him.  And he will manage to take an unctuous swipe at me in the process.

As for your question, I have no idea where the property was except that CBM described it as near the canal.  I doubt it was west of the Canal because CBM told us it was part of the property controlled by SHPBRC, and that property stopped at the Canal.    We may not even know for sure if CBM's trying to buy specifically identified land or whether he simply approached the new development company to ask if they would be willing to sell him 120 yet to be determined acres near the canal.   It could have been already determined, but I don't think he said one way or another.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, I have seen it happen all ways.  Not just talking about this specific incident, but in general, when we attack, others defend.  In some ways, I think Pat is defending his tenuous quick routing theory because I keep saying its false, for example.  I do understand what he is saying, once the parameters were set, but disagree with his phrasing.  Anyway, I think most of the length of these threads comes to that, on all sides.

I don't know why historical trivia is so fascinating, but I like to know the backstory.  Your theory that he just went and asked for 120 acres for just golf in the area to be developed as opposed to a specific 120 acres he had scouted is as good an explanation as any, and would fit all the known facts and fits the CBM narrative, especially if we accept the Sept pony ride from Whigham as suggesting the whole acquisition scenario played out rather quickly after June 2006.  It might explain the rather broad land desriptions in those  articles that confuse Mike, no? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

If you had 450 acres to pick from, and you examined the site over 2 or 3 days, and selected a narrow strip, bordered on three sides, then returned and bordered the fourth side, while at the same time selecting 6-8-12 sites for your holes, wouldn't you say that the routing was done ?

What more was there to do but fill in the missing six blanks, blanks that were confined to a pre-determined location within the returning chain link back to the Shinnecock Inn.

Jeff, it wouldn't matter who was disagreeing with me, I'm convinced that the configuration of the site selected, forced the routing in short order.  Max Behr declared that the course routed itself, which is exactly what I'm saying.

Once CBM determined the approximate Western Border, having already established his Southern, Eastern and Northern Border, the only remaining border was the Western border and once that was established, the 18 hole chain link routing, with 6-8-12 links already sited, was determined.

Once CBM declared, "Finally, we determined it was what we wanted"  ..... "after which we staked out the land we wanted" refers to the WESTERN BORDER.  The Southern Border was already established on his first visit, as was the Eastern Border and the Northern Border.  The staking out of the remaining border finalized the site and the routing, especially since he studied the natural contours and sited 6-8-12 of his holes.

This isn't rocket science, rather "Routing for Dummies"

CBM was enamored of the classic links of the UK, especially TOC.  Once he was given an expansive site (450) acres, he chose, almost immediately, an OUT and BACK Routing.

Eventually you'll be entitled to my opinion  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()