[Jeff_Brauer]

Classic David.

My last post takes a comprehensive look at aspects of his essay that seem to be lacking fact.  So, he goes back to a joke I made about comparing his essay to the birthers as PURE DEFLECTION because he has no fact based answers.

Another example of the lawerly tactics he has always used.  If you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have the law on your side, pound the law, and when you have niether as in this case David doesn't, then pound the table!  Discredit the witness!  Deflect!

Do anything but answer the questions.  And yes, I am LIKE the birthers in this regard.  Why not just pony up and answer?

The only possible reason in this case is.....David cannot because he has no answers.

PS- I only found a few instances of jibberish in the translation of your document from memory, but none that took anyting out of context.  IMHO, this "my essay was damaged" sounds like an attempt to give yourself cover for anything you need to backpedal away from.

Seriously David, where are the FACTS that back up the contentions in your essay that I QUOTED VER BATIM?  I see no attributions, no quotes from known documents that make your case for you.  None.  So, please provide them rather than deflect, and we can end this debate.  You actually could change my mind, if you only had facts.

But nice try on attacking me as usual. 

What was the old Dragnet line?  "Just the facts, m'am"  Once again David, some four years after the essay came out, someone is just asking you to tell us the facts.  And again, you can't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tried to go back and highlight David's exact quotes as taken from his IMO.  An hour I won't get back. I wish Ran would fix the edit function, or is it just my computer?

Anyway, didn't get all the way through it, but hope it helps for the 1.38 people still interested in fighting for truth, justice and the American Way......

[DMoriarty]

Great.  More character assassination and some more lawyer cheap shots with a lame old joke thrown in.   You are just lashing out, and have been for a while.   You throw every insult in the book, including again questioning my honesty, yet you expect a serious answer to your latest out of context pot shots?  Get real.

Besides, I've addressed the vast majority of your supposed "comprehensive look" at my essay numerous times.   If I didn't address it many times before it is because you are just making things up and attributing things to me that I never even suggested, or your criticism make no sense at all.   The facts are in the essay.   You can't comprehensively address them by cherry picking out of context sentences then demanding, like some Rush Limbaugh wannabe, "Where are the facts?"

We agree that you are like the Birthers in this regard, so I don't see why you characterize that as an attack.  You want to see attacks, look within.
___________________________

By the way, I notice you are not only clearing up the quotes but actually substantively changing your post above, long after I responded.  Classy.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Making things up about your essay?  Each of those was cut and paste copy.  None of them had any citation as to why the were true, which would seem to be historic SOP, no?  Really, I read it again, and in very few spots so you cite a specific document to boster your claims, which anyone can read above. 

I do agree anyone interested can and should re-read your IMO, rather than take my word for it, though.  While I am not trying to mislead anyone, I understand the potential for snippets to do so.  That said, for those bits I took out, I am pretty sure that there is no correlating evidence for the assertions I put in there.  Almost NONE.  And, to be fair, I only took the ones I found questionable.  There are certainly many more snippets in there that I obviously left alone because they were backed up, or at least, I recall the documents you were referring to.

For the snippets I posted, I don't see that you ever truly addressed them with fact, and are again avoiding it now.

Again, just the facts, m'am.  How can you slam me for simply asking you for historical facts to back up your supposed historical research piece?  You can keep trying to lump me with birthers or Rush, but its more deflection. In what universe is asking for facts a bad thing?  Isn't that what the historic process is supposed to do?

Just to give you a chance to start slowly with just one, simple answer, what evidence do you have that MCC visited with CBM in January 1911?  I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that.  If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see.

Lastly, ALL I did with that post edit is put your quotes in bold for easier reading.  There ARE NO OTHER CHANGES and for you to to infer that I am doing something unethical is just another example of your outright lying to cover up you being wrong.

 

[DMoriarty]

Yes, Making things up.  Creating B.S. strawmen and then attacking them.  For example,  I never claimed or even implied that CBM and HJW visited Merion more than twice, yet you attack me for it:  "We do know they came back twice, as per the Wilson letter four years after the fact.  But, if Wilson’s Brother says they came back twice only, why do you suppose it was more?  Why tell us that?" You simply made up this notion that I claimed more than two trips, and then attacked me and scolded me and demanded I explain myself.  You have little understanding of my claims or the facts, so you simply make shit up and attack me anyway.

Along the same lines, you also challenge my statement CBM and HJW remained significantly involved after Merion bought the property!  Are you kidding me?  If you cannot find my evidence on that one, then you couldn't have read the essay, even in its garbled form! Either that or you are just pulling things out of context and taking unsupportable pot shots.  

One of the thing that was garbled were my footnotes.  My factual assertions were extensively supported by footnotes, and they are gone or unconnected to that which they note.  Other than than I have no idea where you get the idea that my stuff isn't supported. It is. Whether or not you agree with my conclusions.  

This is crap, Jeff.  Just another lame, thin, half-assed list of cheap shots. Pulling sentences out of context and demanding I jump through hoops for you.  I'm not going to do it.  If you guys ever come up with anything worth addressing, I will but this isn't even close, nor is Cirba's "IMO" nor is the Faker .pdf.  

Just to give you a chance to start slowly with just one, simple answer, what evidence do you have that MCC visited with CBM in January 1911?  I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that.  If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see.

Okay Jeff.  Here is your one.  It is one and done for me.

The February 1, Ag letter from Wilson to Piper.  The first evidence of Wilson's involvement.  It was not only in my essay, it was  part of the factual basis for supposing the timing of the NGLA trip, but also was discussed in my alternate theory about the timing.

As usual, you neither know the facts nor understand my arguments. But you want blood, so you spout off anyway.  Which is why I encourage you to put it in a more productive form that just continually attacking me with things you obviously don't understand.  

[DMoriarty]

From the Essay as it now reads:
The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee. By February 1, 1911, Wilson had already begun working out the details of the construction. On that date, Wilson sent a letter to agronomy expert Charles Piper requesting advice on viable grass strains for Merion. In the letter, Wilson noted that Macdonald had recommended Piper’s services, and that the committee valued Macdonald’s advice and was writing based on Macdonald’s advice. Thus, before February of 1911, Wilson and his Committee had already been in contact with C. B. Macdonald, discussing matters as specific to the construction as the type of grass Merion should try to grow.

Presumably, any such discussions between the Construction Committee and Macdonald occurred while the Committee was meeting with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA. If not, then Wilson and his Committee had even more contact with Macdonald than is currently known. Either way, Wilson and his Committee began discussing the details of Merion East with Macdonald shortly after the Committee was appointed in January 1911.

You try and cherry pick one single issue to grandstand, and you cannot even pick one that isn't answerable straight out of the text!   Instead you grandstand with your challenge: 
"I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that.  If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see."  

What were you reading??   Did you even bother to read the documents??  It wasn't in any Appendix.  It was right there in the text!  

Enough of this garbage.  You are just desperately taking shots but, as usual, you are shooting blanks.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Nice try on demanding a comprehensive approach, as if finding a foundation of your theory as wrong isn't valuble.  I took the portion dealing with you assertion of the November pre-routing in entirety, and posted what I think is true, unproven, and partially true.  Maybe it can be a start towards a more comprehensive peice as you suggest.

David, I am not the ignorant person you make me out to be. I do understand your theories, and I understand you have backpedaled away from some at times.  I also suspect you have enough alternate theories to keep yourself right in a pinch.  

For that matter, I have usually found that most true theories as to history especially aren't that hard to understand, and that the real complicated ones (like yours) tend to have some problems.  Not that this proves any specific case of history to be true or false.  I also have said I agree in a general way that CBM deserves more credit than MCC gave in its history books, although I believe those in the know always knew it to a degree (its in their records.)

Here are the points I believe are more theory than fact, and as yet unproven.  The fact that you wrote extensively on this pre november routing without documents and now hope that someone isn't hiding the Drexel documents, and hoping they prove something, speaks volumes to me about just how firm that part of your essay is, but here goes:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.” TRUE With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. TRUE The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald. TRUE – SOMEWHAT.  DIDN’T LIKE THE 6000 YARD RECOMMENDATION BASED ON FUTURE ACTIONS, BUT DAVID DISPUTES THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE LETTER RECOMMENDING (STRONGLY) 6000 BE ENOUGH.

The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. TRUE Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.  UNPROVEN, AS TO WORDS “SPECIFIC” AND REQUIRED

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase. TRUE – QUOTES CLUB DOCUMENTS

The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned. UNPROVEN, WRITTEN BY YOU, AND A BASIS FOR NUMEROUS OTHER FACTS YOU WANT US TO ASSUME ARE TRUE.  THE ONLY APPARENT DOCUMENTATION SHOWN BELOW IS DAVID’S OPINION THAT MCC MUST HAVE FOLLOWED TO THE “T” HOW CBM GOT THE FINAL SITE FOR NGLA.

While the Site Committee tried “to impress upon the Board the fact that . . . prompt action [was] necessary,” immediate action turned out to be impossible. Haverford Development Company did not yet own all of the “nearly 120 acres” that Merion now required for their purposes. TRUE –The company controlled approximately 300 acres, but Merion needed two specific parcels totaling 24 acres that were not part of Haverford Development Company’s extensive holdings. The purchase would have to wait until they could gain access to this additional land. UNPROVEN, AS TO WORDS “SPECIFIC”.  WE CAN ALSO SPECULATE THAT BASED ON SOMETHING, THEY REALIZED THEY NEEDED MORE LAND WEST OF ARDMORE ROAD.

Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.

It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. UNPROVEN Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel. UNPROVEN-NO PROOF THAT MCC AND NGLA FOLLOWED EXACT SAME PROGRAM.  MCC APPEARS TO FOLLOW PROGRAM OF 120 ACRES WITH DEVELOPER CONTROLLNG LAND, NOT OFFERING THEIR OWN LOTS, FOR REASONS YOU EXPLAIN.

The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted. (p. 158, emphasis added.)

In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. UNPROVEN AND ADMITTED BY YOUR CONDITIONAL QUALIFER The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements. TRUE –MCC NEEDED OTHER PARCELS, BUT MAY NOT BE ONLY DIFFERENCE.  EXACT SAME PROCEDURES NOT PROVEN.

I AM JUST TAKING THE ONE SECTION DEALING WITH CBM’S SUPPOSED ROUTING PRIOR TO NOV 15, 1910.  I HAVE SHOWN THAT DAVID DISCUSSES THINGS BELOW, AS PROMISED, BUT NOT WITH ANY DOCUMENTATION. IF HIS FOOTNOTES REAPPEAR, THEN I WILL CONSIDER I MAY BE WRONG.  

I admit the weakest part of my current argument MIGHT be solved by access to your footnotes.  That said, see my comments about your Drexel documents above.

Once again, I just don't think there is any real conclusive evidence of the routing having been finished or even largely roughed in by November, which you have to believe to believe the CBM routed the course without the committee working on it, and just working on construction.

Oh yes, I recall your long dissertations (still largely debated) that laying out the golf course has some precise meaning that only you could figure out how it was used 100 years ago.

BTW, we should all celebrate.  This has to be pretty close to 100 years exactly that one of our national treasures - Merion Golf Club - started that actual construction.  Maybe someone should go out and set off some explosives to recreate the blasting on the 16th green!

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Not sure what you are saying in our crossed posts. I am pretty sure the only documented trip to NGLA was in March, not January as you speculated.

As to writing Piper and Oakley, didn't CBM mention that in his June 29, 1910 letter?

What documents do you have that demonstrate continued contact, other than your assumption that "they must have?"

[DMoriarty]

Wait a minute here Jeff,

You grandstanded, pleading with me to answer a single question.  Announcing that there was no factual basis in the essay.    Saying you would apologize if you were wrong.  

Well you were wrong.  You couldn't even get this one point right.    So where is the apology?

And while you are at it how about you admit you were wrong to claim I had stated there were more than two trips to Merion?

And how about admitting you were wrong about claiming there was no support for CBM's continued invovlement after July?  

Nope.  You just skip onto the next bogus claim about my essay, as if you weren't even involved in a conversation.   Who is writing this stuff for you Jeff?  Whoever it is (as if I didn't know) he ought to get his facts straight.  

[DMoriarty]

David,

Not sure what you are saying in our crossed posts. I am pretty sure the only documented trip to NGLA was in March, not January as you speculated.

As to writing Piper and Oakley, didn't CBM mention that in his June 29, 1910 letter?

What documents do you have that demonstrate continued contact, other than your assumption that "they must have?"

Neither Piper nor Oakley were mentioned in the June letter.

The Feb. 1 letter is evidence, and there is other evidence, but I answered your one question.   I am done.  You though need to set the record straight about some of the stuff you have claimed because it is wrong.  

[Mike Cirba]

New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.


Who else was CBM talking about back in June, 1910 other than Piper and Oakley??

If they were following CBM's instructions, why did it take them 9 months to send soil samples to Piper and Oakley??

[DMoriarty]

Nice try Mike, but as usual you are cherry picking the source material to distort what really happened.

In the February 1 letter Wilson indicated that CBM had spoken to them and that Wilson immediately decided to contact Piper based on CBM's good advice.

We have covered this all before.  You guys are spinning your wheels.   

Come up with something new or productive or let it go.   You are wasting my time. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If we are cherry picking, you cut down the tree, but just won't admit it like our first president......

I stand by my post, and note that you spend time telling us we are wrong, but precious little time defending how you are right.

Your essay tells us that Merion designed the course before buying the land, and offers only CBM's description of how he did it at the second site at NGLA as "proof."  There is not one word of confirmation from any source (other than the Whigham eulogy, which is suspect, but possible)

I agree we should stop wasting time. I understand you are quite fond of your essay, and put a lot of work into historic research.  I simply don't believe you have offered enough evidence.  As you say, I am free to disagree with you, and having said that, and the reasons why, its time to let it go, perhaps for brighter minds to resolve any issues about Merion and its creation.

Have a happy easter.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

You have some unfinished business.  You were grandstanding about how I couldn't even come up with facts to support the notion that CBM and Wilson were communicating in January, pleading with me to answer just this one challenge and claiming that there was no support in my essay.   You said if I offered support you would set the record straight.

I met your challenge straight out of the essay but, typically, you haven't lived up to your side of the deal.  You were wrong.  Said you would admit it if you were, but instead of so doing you just move on to the next issue about which you are also wrong.

And you also need to set the record straight about falsely accusing me of claiming there were more than two Merion trips and falsely claiming that there was no support stating the CBM and HJW remained involved after the land was chosen.   There are plenty of other errors and mistakes in your accusations, but you can't even set the record straight on these first few, despite your indication that you would.  

I don't care if you think I haven't come up with "enough evidence" because you have no clue what the evidence is (see the January claim) or even what I have claimed (see your more than two trips accusation) or even what the essay was about (see your accusation that I didn't support the claim of CBM's continued involvement.)   Your claims of the last few days about my essay are downright foolish and show how little comprehension of what is in the essay and what isn't.  But then when you are just cherry picking sentences, I wouldn't expect much understanding on your part!  

Whoever has been feeding you this garbage the past few days is completely clueless, but then we already knew that.

You guys are spinning your wheels and taking pot shots about items already covered multiple times.  Your attempts to crucify my essay will never stop, but you haven't even scathed it.  

If you ever come up with anything new, let me know.  

And I already defended where I am right.  It is in my IMO.  You should try it sometime.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"If you ever come up with anything new, let me know. "

David,

Ditto. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If you provided evidence, which you claim to be a Feb letter saying that Hugh Wilson talked to CBM and immediately wrote Oakley, I can't comment because I don't recall that letter exactly.  It is certainly not beyond you to add or subract one word which can change meanings.  But, I understand where you are coming from and consider that letter to be sort of tangential evidence.  However, it could be as Mike says.  CBM did mention Washington Experts in his June letter, and it could also be that.  IMHO, inconclusive.

Also, as to you making your point "right out of the essay" you quote yourself to make a point?  Anyone vetting your essay will not use your words as proof of your words being correct!  It doesn't fly with me, or for that matter, anyone who is serious about this stuff, but you have offered your own essay up as proof for your own essay in the past.  You have to see the flaw in that logic, don't you?

[DMoriarty]

David,

If you provided evidence, which you claim to be a Feb letter saying that Hugh Wilson talked to CBM and immediately wrote Oakley, I can't comment because I don't recall that letter exactly.

You cannot comment because you don't recall the letter exactly? ]Then if you don't have a firm grasp on the facts, what are you doing making all these outlandish pronouncements on my essay and what I have supported and what I haven't!

What a farce this is!  This was your hand-picked issue, and you claimed I offered no factual support!  I give you factual support straight out of my essay and suddenly you can't comment?  You've been commenting for years without knowing what the hell you were talking about, so why stop now?   The reality is are in no position to comment on ANYTHING in my essay because you don't have a grasp of either the essay or the facts.   Yet you comment on how I claimed more than two Merion trips -- I didn't.  And you comment on how I didn't support my claims of CBM's continued involvement -- I did.    And you comment on a bunch more stuff that you don't understand!  You only refrain from comment when proven wrong.  

It is certainly not beyond you to add or subtract one word which can change meanings.

Here we go.   Another shot at my honesty and integrity.  I don't make stuff up or manipulate the source material like your pals and allies.  and  I AM TIRED OF BEING CALLED A LIAR BY YOU AND YOUR SCUMBAG PALS.  I have no respect for them, and these never ending false accusations about my honesty are sapping what little respect I still had for you.  

The rest of your post is just more wheel spinning and continued nonsense.   I referenced that February letter and that February letter is my factual support.   You don't need it accept it and of course will not, but that says more about you than it does whether I offered factual support.  

You are a cga Birther, as is Mike.  No evidence will satisfy you, and you won't accept even the smallest logical conclusions from an unambiguous factual record.   In the February 1, 1910letter Wilson said that CBM had spoken of Piper and that he could help them, and they immediately decided to write and ask for help!   That is all in the letter, BUT RATHER THAN LOOK IT UP YOURSELF (it has probably been copied 50 times in these threads) YOU AGAIN ACCUSE ME OF DISHONESTLY MISREPRESENTING IT AND HEM AND HAW ABOUT A LETTER FROM EIGHT MONTHS BEFORE THERE IS ANY PROOF OF WILSON'S INVOLVEMENT!

Such behavior is pure sleaze and is despicable.  

[Mike Cirba]

This is the February 1st Hugh Wilson letter.   The red underlined is simply highlighting some items from a past discussion.

In one sense Wilson was contacting P&O"immediately" as the property had only been purchased by HG Lloyd for the club in the latter part of December 1910.   It would have been likely premature to send soil samples prior to actually securing the property.   Also, Wilson's committee had only just been formalized at that time.

I don't see how this establishes the timeframe of additional communications with Macdonald one way or another after June 29th, 1910.

[DMoriarty]

I don't see how this establishes the timeframe of additional communications with Macdonald one way or another after June 29th, 1910.

Of course you don't.  Because you are incapable reasonably and objectively considering the source material.  And no doubt Birther Brauer will agree with you.

But as I have said repeatedly, I don't care whether you accept my conclusions or not.    I just want you both to quit pretending that there is no factual basis for my conclusions.

The letter provides a strong factual basis for the conclusion that CBM was involved before February 1st, and it just doesn't fit that this letter references a letter from eight months before.

You guys can twist it all you like (as you try to do above with your strained and misleading version of what "immediately" means) but the most obvious interpretation is what I said in my essay.   Wilson was dealing with CBM prior to February 1, 1910, and when he first became involved in the project.  
_____________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Now that you have finally seen this letter, are you ready to set the records straight regarding your challenge above?  And what do you have to say about your supposition that I lying about the letter by changing words to misrepresenting what it said?   Surely this needs to be added to the growing is of false claims you have made about me and my essay that need to be set straight.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

As you predicted, I appreciate Mike refreshing our memory, and I agree with him that the Feb 1 letter in no way fleshes out when CBM suggested they contact Piper.  Nor do I think you shed any factual light on it.  Again, here is your essay verbatim on this matter:


Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Conditional commentGiven that the routing had been known for months, Conditional commentand given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) Conditional commenthad been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, (False or Unproven at least) it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald,Conditional comment and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.Conditional comment

Once again, a lot of "seems likely" but no additional proof that they had been in contact, and one outright missed fact - that they went to NGLA in January.  Lastly, no hints that there are any golf holes on the map, just "sections" which somehow you magically interpret as a routing.  With so many unproven assertions just in that one paragraph, how can we trust the rest of your essay?

I will apologize for inserting the word "immediately" into your post. I was certain you added that somewhere in a post or private email, but you are correct, and I did not find that word.  Very sorry for that.

That said,  I agree with you that your essay is an interpretation of the events, but just don't see the necessary corroborating evidence (such as any document pointing to other contacts) that I believe a true historian would seek out before publishing a supposedly serious theory that it is "the most reasonable interpretation."  Interesting, but it falls short, and I think you would agree if any one else posted a theory on such little actual historic fact.  

Again, anyone who  reads your essay again will see that you really don't footnote it, point to any documents, etc.  You just tell us its the most reasonable interpretation.  Your essay is split perhaps 50-50 between facts we all know and your opinions as to what they mean.  It really is.  And that is a fact.

I know you disagree, and am willing to leave it at that.  It seems clear that you and I start our discussions from vsatly differnt viewpoints (if not planets! ) and so I know it will be impossible to agree.

Cheers.

[DMoriarty]

Hold on a second, Jeff.

Your claim was that there were NO FACTS SUPPORTING MY CLAIM THAT CBM WAS INVOLVED IN JANUARY.   You didnt claim that no facts would convince you and Mike.  That is a given!

YOU WERE WRONG.  THERE ARE FACTS SUPPORTING MY CLAIMS.  THAT YOU AND MIKE AREN'T CONVINCED IS YOUR PROBLEM.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I agree we are two tough customers.  I also agree there are some facts supporting your claims.  But, like most of this historic stuff, there are so many conflicting documents, details to fill in, etc.

May not agree its not your problem.  Its your essay, your contention it will be revised, etc.  If Mike and I didn't exist, someone else would surely come in and fill the void.

BTW, I think the most accurate representation of my position is that there aren't sufficient facts to establish that CBM was involved prior to March 1911, save that June 29 meeting to inspect the property.  Its not really an all or nothing mentality.

Cheers.

[DMoriarty]

Is that what you are, a "tough customer?"  I guess if you equate unreasonable with "tough customer" then I see your point.

You've repeatedly claimed there was much in my essay that had NO FACTUAL SUPPORT.  You railed on it and me, calling it flaming shit, claiming it was worthless, calling me a liar, among other things.  You grandstanded and threw down challenges and made promises of what would happen if I met them.  You repeatedly announced that no facts backed up my claims.   Here was your big challenge:    "What evidence do you have that MCC visited with CBM in January 1911?  I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that.  If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see."

You were wrong.  My claim was and is supported by the February 1, 1910 Wilson letter.  It provided more than a reasonable basis for my claim, it provides a STRONG BASIS.    So did you admit you were wrong and set the record straight as you indicated you would in your own cherry-picked challenge?  Of course not.  That would be reasonable, and you aren't reasonable, you are a "tough customer."   So instead you outrageously accused me of LYING about what this document said.

Of course I wasn't lying at all.  It was just another unfounded and damning insult on your part, but those are becoming commonplace for you.  The document said exactly what I said it said.   But did you admit you were wrong after it turned out that I wasn't lying?  Of course not. "Tough customers" don't admit they are wrong merely because they are proven wrong, and they certainly aren't going to let little things like INTEGRITY or their WORD get in the way of being a tough customer!  So instead you mumble some crap about "so many conflicting documents, details to fill in, etc." and leave it at that.

That's it?  That is your excuse for repeatedly but wrongly claiming there is no factual support for my claims?   That is your version of admitting you were WRONG, apologizing, and setting the record straight?  That is all you can come up with after all your pages of bullshit, derogatory attacks on me and my essay, after repeatedly calling me a LIAR when I have done nothing but honestly and accurately represent the source material?  

I know those pesky "documents, details to fill in, etc." have never held much interest to you, but then that begs the question of where you get off attacking me for week after week and calling me names and misrepresenting my essay when you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about?  I guess you think this makes you a "tough customer" but to me it just makes you another scumbag who cannot separate his emotion from reasonable factual analysis.  But I guess you admitted that when you informed us you were a Birther.  

BTW, I think the most accurate representation of my position is that there aren't sufficient facts to establish that CBM was involved prior to March 1911, save that June 29 meeting to inspect the property.  Its not really an all or nothing mentality.

It is sad, but this may just be true.   It may be that this January 1910 business my just be the most accurate part of all your unsupportable, inaccurate, and uncalled for attacks on me and my essay over the past few weeks.  

We have a letter where Wilson references CBM telling them to contact Piper, and Wilson saying they immediately decided to contact CBM.  (There is more, but let's just go with this one document!)  Yet, inexplicably, you claim that this is not sufficient evidence that CMB was involved with Wilson sometime before that letter??   And that is THE BEST you can come up with as a criticism of my essay?  And you think that justifies this seemingly endless witch-hunt?  Truly pathetic.  

All your insults, all your baseless claims about my essay and your false accusations about be lying, after your challenge and grandstanding and all the other crap, we are exactly where we are when we started.

1. The claims in my essay have a reasonable factual basis.  
2.  Your claims to the contrary are nonsense.  
3.  You don't agree with my conclusions, but I can live with that.  I wouldn't expect you would and I really don't care what you think, and for good reason.  

That is it.  

Oh yeah, I want nothing more to do with you.  

[JESII]

I wish these threads could avoid the personal attacks but history seems to prove otherwise...my suggestion: either don't participate, or leave the personal insults aside...


David,

The problem with your interpretation is that you're assuming Wilson and CBM spoke or corresponded in January but there truly is no factual support for that. He didn't say they contacted Piper/Oakley immediately after speaking to CBM about them. he wrote..."we...imediately decided that we would write to you...". Deciding to write, and writing are two different events, wouldn't you agree?

Now, there's another issue amongst all this that can be analyzed in this context...one of your premises is that Wilson was not involved until January when the committee was formalized and I've always had a problem with that. Why would someone be apponted chairman of the committee out of the clear blue? While I have no specific proof, I think it's unreasonable to say Merion would have named him chairman of the committee if he hadn't shown an interest in the project and aptitude for the task over the prior 6 or 8 months.

These two items are distinct arguments but are inextricably linked in your assumption the Wilson's word "immediately" means he and CBM had just communicated with each other prior to the February 1 letter.


As you know, I agree that CBM had alot more to do with the initial creation of Merion East than a simple gratuitous visit in June 1910 and a couple casual conversations in March/April 1911 as Mike and Jeff consistently propose but I don't agree with your interpretation of all the material.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this paragraph Wilson wrote:
"Mr. Charles McDonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out if anyone could. We realize the value of his advice and immediately decided that we would write to you and see if you would be good enough to help us out."

[Tom MacWood]

Was there a separate dedicated construction committee?  Or was there the standard green/golf committee that managed the maintenance of the golf course, including in this case the construction of the new golf course?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()