Andy and others,
You've got to view all of these past few pages in the context of the point Mike is trying to make, because Mike argues from the end. His desired conclusion shapes his understanding of the facts. Where they conflict, the facts are reworked, never the conclusions. That is how he can jump from one sinking ship to another so quickly. His conclusion is the only solid ground.
Here, Mike's point is that at the time the land was formally optioned in mid-December 1906 all that had been done was that HJW and CBM had ridden the land for a few days. They hadn't begun routing the course and choosing the 205 acres of land he wanted out of the 450 acre parcel. The October articles (among much other evidence) contradict his point, so he must shape the articles to fit the conclusion.
But in this case, we've already been through all of this before, when I first posted these October articles way back on page 8, post 270. Between there and the bottom of page 11 Mike pulled out all the stops. I won't go through it all but it involved trying to pretend this was all on the other side of the Canal, then that it was the 120 acre article discussed in CBM's book, then that it was a third, never before known or discussed parcel right in the middle of the land being developed with roads and infrastructure for housing, and part of the same very same project where from which THE DEVELOPER HAD ALREADY REFUSED TO SELL CBM LAND. It is all a waste of time, but if you want to see how Mike jumps from ship to ship as each one sinks it is worth a look.
Finally, near the bottom of page 11, all of Mike's ships had sunk and Mike seemed willing to concede the point: I asked, "Do you now see that it is very likely that CBM was focusing on Sebonack Neck at least as far back as October 1906?" His response: "I'm willing to consider that it was the same land,yes, thanks." Knowing that Mike was likely to reverse course as soon as it suited him, I pressed him and he wrote, "I think its probably 50/50 on whether it's the site they ended up with and yes, I meant the Nov 1st article if that helps advance the discussion. . . . If nothing else, I think the 50 percenr chance that this was the ultimate site deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down, don't you think?" So while not totally conceding, he thought it was was as likely as not and wanted to proceed as if it had been conceded. So we finally moved on!
Mike then asked about what I thought about the details of the October articles. In post 370 I explained why I am unwilling to dismiss the articles as inaccurate out of convenience and explain many of the things I think we can learn from them, including that CBM and HJW were involved in this property much earlier than we expected. At this point, did Mike tell me I was crazy to give these articles some credence? Did he call my reading "beyond stupid and insulting?" Did he say that my reading was hopelessly flawed? No. He largely agreed with me.
"I generally agree with everything you just wrote and would only say that it seems the maps were pretty detailed topos if that article is accurate. []But, as far as stretching out the timeline, I wholeheartedly agree. I think CBM knew he wanted to build around Shinnecock since 1905 as he sort of alluded in his book, and probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer. []I'm also betting he got Raynor to survey it prior to securing the land...nothing but a strong hunch based on what we're learning, but I'm thinking it would be a logical step.
That doesn't sound like what Mike has been saying for the past few pages, does it? But knowing Mike it is easy to explain the about face. All that changed was that I asked Mike to reconsider his main point in the context of these October articles. Apparently, until I pressed him on it, Mike had not considered that HIS OWN READING of the October articles completely undermines his point about nothing really having happened until after mid-December 1906. Trying to get him to reconsider his position even based on evidence he accepted might be impossible. He'd rather just mischaracterize the evidence.
- First he tried a shortcut, falsely claiming that I had dismissed the articles as unreliable.
- After I set the record straight, he tried to throw the discussion off track by trying to play Patrick and I against each other.
- When we don't fall for it, he turned to haughty insults and pretended the answer is obvious, calling my questions "beyond stupid and insulting." When I I kept pressing, and he is ready to come full circle.
- In Post 668 he announced, "Time for a little housekeeping." In Mike-speak, this means it is time for a full-scale retreat; time to erase all progress and return to blatantly misrepresenting the record to force the facts to fit with his conclusions.
And that is all that has gone on since that Post 668, with the same tired argument, modified slightlyonly here and there. Suddenly, despite his past representations, reading the October articles as referring to the Sebonack Neck property no longer "deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down."[/i]
He'll try and rewrite the entire history before he will reconsider his point. But Mike can blackout all the land he likes and draw whatever lines he wants, and he can argue about railroad stations and plans and over passes and roads until the cows come home. But none of his various scenarios even come close to fitting with the description in the articles. He is intentionally misreading the the main descriptor. The land stretched along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs Inlet.
I am not moved by Mike's blacked out areas or his lines or his apparent argument that rather than being directly east of the land CBM finally settled upon, it is actually slightly south-east. This is especially so because we don't know for certain at this point whether CBM had narrowed down his course to just the final 200 acres chosen. And I am not sure he has drawn Shinnecock accurately either.
_______________________________
I see now that he has even resurrected the position that this must be some mystery third location, apart from the 120 acre Canal property or the Sebonack Neck property. It has been discussed to death, but perhaps it is worth again noting that:
1. This mystery land was supposedly on land that was already in the process of being developed by SHPBRC and they were already reportedly constructing roads and infrastructure.
2. Perhaps more importantly, CBM had already tried to buy 120 acres of land from the same parcel of land on which this development was taking place, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAD SHOT HIM DOWN, presumably because of their development plans.
3. This land does not stretch along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs Inlet.
Mike is just making up this hole third parcel because he does not want to face the facts. The project was well underway long before mid-December 1906! Even Mike admitted that they had likely been working on it since summer and probably already had it surveyed. That is before he realized that this contradicted his point.