[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Clearly the President follows GCA.   How could he not and remain informed of important issues?    

Of course, I'd long argued that if we found a routing map signed and dated by Hugh Wilson and notarized by DeWitt Cuyler some here would immediately declare it a forgery.

I suspect the same thing will happen with the Birth Certificate.    

By the way, Jeff...reading Cuyler's letter we see that indeed it was possible to secure land in a fixed amount with undetermined borders out of a larger parcel, as happened at NGLA.   What does this do to Patrick's contention that such a transaction was legally impossible??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

To be honest, what would be worth discussing from this point forward would be how the early holes were built.  Wilson's 1916 recollections sure make it seem like they weren't going to move any earth in fws since he talks about building 18 greens and tees and seeding 15 fw.

However, we know they blasted the 16th green, and from old photos, it appears the Alps hole (original tenth) had a huge pile of earth put in it.  So, where did they get that dirt?  From road construction?  A natural hill that was there (doesn't look like it)

Anyway, that would be interesting to me, and would fit the bill of how that stuff came to be as it was.

For that matter, since this is an NGLA thread, and most of those holes had some massive earthmoving (for the times) it would be great to unearth some documents about how long the fills were hauled, etc.  Maybe thats just the architect in me, and no one else cares.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I would agree, because in the case of Merion, it seems those holes that were attempts to create "templates" based on holes from abroad were more "made" after the routing was established than "found" during the routing process, largely through earthmoving and bunker creation, as seen in Hugh Wilson's comment to Alex Findlay that the Alps "would take a lot of making", or Richard Francis telling us that "the location of the 3rd lent itself to this design", as opposed to "we looked to see where we could locate a redan hole".  

But you're right...those efforts were minimal.

Anyone who has even been on the Merion property would note that many of the greens are simply at grade, and very little looks to have been done to the general contours of the overall land in terms of shaping.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I always figured the prime reason the Alps was made was because with the road crossing, they wanted to encourage the aerial shot into that green, rather than have the run up over the road.....

BTW, don't recall where it was discussed, but there is some writings about Wilson mastering the natural look better than CBM, and also (I think) some discussion that they/HW really just didn't care for the strict lines of the CBM look and wanted to do it differently, which history shows, they did!  (Maybe in Wilson's rebuilding of the course a few years later and over time)  I think everyone has agreed that much of Wilson's legacy regarding the course was the slow addition of the White Faces of Merion, no?

[Tom MacWood]

Another great example of how these guys can argue right around all the relevant facts, such as the fact that McConnell brought Barker in, and MCC specifically mentioned that they didn't, and never mentioned him again.

I think its great to know the back story, and even speculated at one time that CBM and the committee did in fact look at Barkers routing, perhaps making them realize they needed the Dallas estate to get the length they wanted, and maybe more.  We don't know just how if any it influenced them but boy would it be fascinating to see that Barker sketch routing!

That said, its clear that Barker deserves no credit for the design of Merion. If I (or any architect) took any co-credit for courses because we did some preliminary work for developers, but owners, land parcels, or other factors changed, our portfolios would each have another fifty courses in them, because that happens a lot.

No one cares what TMac thinks is logical and we have seen his logical sequence that led him to credit the design to Barker.  BTW, no one was making fun of railroads in any post, just TMacs tortured attempt to use the train schedules and his trip down south to somehow magically put Barker on site in December, just as the land deal was finalized to magically spend one day designing the course.

If TMac believes that the Wilson Europe story in the 1980's Tollhurst history discredits all of Merion's history, then others are surely allowed to believe that his Barker excersize taints nearly anything he might say about Merion, no?  Clearly agenda driven, and it needs to be discounted for that reason alone.

Just MHO.

At this point everyone has an opinion, but yours seems to be based more on emotion than the facts.

You are correct Barker's letter was addressed to Connell and the minutes made a point that he engaged him on his own, but that letter somehow made it into the official MCC record and was used by Lloyd & Co. to justify the purchase. It is also a fact three separate Philadelphia papers reported Lloyd secured the advice of Barker (and CBM & Whigham), and its unlikely Connell did anything without Lloyd knowing or approving. To my knowledge Connell didn't even play golf. So who ultimately brought in Barker is not exactly clear.

At this point, not knowing precisely who did what, I think it is pretty useless to make a blanket statement of who deserves and who doesn't deserve design credit because no one knows. We do know Barker produced a routing (the only known routing produced), and we do know the Philadelphia Press reported in November Barker has been engaged to design the golf course. Perhaps that was an erroneous report, but perhaps it wasn't.  All I know is that Wilson's own account explains his role was construction, and the numerous letters back that up.

[Tom MacWood]

PS: You were the one who brought up train schedules not me. After I  presented my theory about Barker laying out numerous courses in December. You claimed that someone had all the records of Ross's train travels, which I think is highly unlikely. But anyways after you first brought it up I said that Barker's train from NYC to Atlanta would have likely gone through Philadelphia, so it was plausible. You have tendency to forget how these things transpired and your role.

[Tom MacWood]

Fellows,

Can we now finally at least ALL agree that there is no way in God's green earth that the golf course at Merion was routed by November 15th, 1910?  

I keep hearing people hedge their bets with terms like "rough routing", which is ridiculous, because the same person argued that Merion secured EXACTLY the land they needed before the end of 1910 based on the routing already being completed.

So, you can't have it both ways.   It was either routed before the end of 1910 or it wasn't, and the reason why is very clear when one reads Francis' account.

First, Francis tells us that they were working within land constraints of an already secured property, not creating a routing and then buying the land that supports it.   Listen again to his words;




Francis tells us that while they were working on the routing, or "layout";

1) The land (already secured) was shaped like the Letter L, indicating definitive borders.

2) It was not very difficult to "get" (or fit) the first 13 holes into the upright position of the L, with the help of "a little ground" (likely the 3 acres of rail property) on the north side of Ardmore Avenue.

3) But the last five holes were another question.   In other words, they still couldn't fit them correctly in the land that remained.

Fit them to what?   To the existing boundaries of the property in question, which is surely the 117 acres secured under Lloyd's name in December 1910, along with the 3 acres of railroad land.

So, I think it's indisputable that they were working on routing the course within the confines of land already secured (which happened in late December 1910), not routing the course and then securing the land.    In fact, if they had routed the course first, there would have been no need at all for the "Francis Swap" because they would simply use whatever land they needed for their routing and then secure and purchase it, but that is NOT what Francis tells us happened.    Are you listening Jim Sullivan?    

Second, Francis tells us that his contribution came at the END of the routing, not midstream.   He tells us that his brainstorm permitted the LAST five holes to be located or put into position on the land, provided that they swap land they weren't using "along Golf House Road", which is clearly the land across the street from the clubhouse extending up #14, and swapped it for land up near the quarry, specifically naming the area of the 15 green and 16th tee.

We also know from the minutes and the deed that Merion ended up purchasing 120 acres, not 117, so this was likely a result of reshaping these borders, as well.   The final course measured just over 123 acres, given the leased 3 acres of railroad land.

So, we know that what Francis did FINALIZED the routing that was ultimately approved, and allowed Merion to move forward.

So, was the course routing FINALIZED on November 15th, 1910, and then specific land secured based on that completed routing, as some have argued?

I would refer for your consideration the following letter from the Merion Cricket Club minutes, copied from "The Nature Faker", by Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul;

The following letter from Thos. DeWitt Cuyler, Esq., was ordered to be spread in full
on the minutes, viz.,

Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa

My dear Sir:

Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,

In accordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letter from the Haverford
Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the
terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy
of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I
would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.

I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.

In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon. (bold & color for emphasis mine)

I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.

I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.

Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler

It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.

It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.


So, gentlemen, can we finally put to rest this notion that the golf course was routed by November 15th, 1910??  It seems to me that if we can't accept these very basic facts as reality we'll never get anywhere, and it's clear that the design of Merion happened starting in 1911.   What say ye?  


Having said that, let's move back to the June 1910 timeframe when both Barker and then CBM & Whigham came to view the property.

First of all, do we even KNOW exactly what HDC property they were looking at specifically at that time, or what land was used on Barker's routing?   We don't.

The land of the Dallas Estate, which makes up 21 acres of the existing East course was not under the control of the Haverford Development Company until FIVE MONTHS later.   There is no mention of the need for HDC to acquire additional parcels in the July 1910 internal club records that talked about Connell bringing in Barker or CBM's and Whigham's visit.   None.

Instead, we learn that HDC is offering at the time "100 acres, or whatever is needed" for the golf course from their existing holdings.   We also know that Merion, likely as a result of conferring with CBM and Whigham, felt they would need to purchase "nearly 120 acres" instead, which is consistent with Macdonald's writings.

We can also safely assume that some of that land would be needed near the farm house on the property, up along the quarry, and along the creek, as related in the CBM letter.   However, we don't know for certain the entire holding and it's even possible that the entire property looked at during that time was all north of Ardmore Avenue.  

So, while we know that Barker submitted a routing on some HDC land for Connell, we don't know where it was, or if any of it was used in the final routing.   We do know that no one at the time saw fit to credit him.

We also know that CBM did NOT submit a routing based on his one-day visit, but instead wrote a very general letter which has been reproduced here countless times.

Hopefully, such useless and unsupported speculation such as what's taken place over the past day won't go on (i.e. the secret relationship of Raynor and Francis, or the idea the Merion stole Barker's routing yet never credited him), but I won't hold my breath.

In any case, the facts are becoming clear, finally.

How does this effect my theory Barker staked out the course in December?

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

Don't waste your time talking facts to Brauer.  Facts and details have never been his strong suit, no matter how many times they have been covered before.   For example I see he is again misrepresenting CBM's original aesthetic at NGLA to support Wayne and TEPaul's unsupported theory that Wilson (or as they misattribute, Flynn) rejected CBM's "strict lines" in favor of something more natural.  It has been covered multiple times before with Brauer and he has even been provided photos, but he isn't going to let a silly thing like FACTS get in the way when he has a big picture point to make.

Likewise, perhaps you shouldn't interrupt Cirba with actual facts either.   He seems to be quite busy tying himself in knots again, claiming both that the land was definitely decided and that it was yet to be determined in the course of a few sentences.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I agree we all have opinions, and they can get quite strong.  Mine ar not emotional at all and are based on what really happens, at least in the 33 years I have been a gca, regarding how projects get put together and credited.  While you may think things were different back then, or should be different now, my points are valid based on how most people see crediting golf course design.  In truth, I support the idea (to the degree its practical) of the "backstory, such as associate "A" did this or that on my or any projects.  Its the next level of golf architecture history.

I know that Brad Klien had all of Ross' train schedules, which he told me he used to recreate Ross schedule for the book.  Real research based on facts!  But something you readily dismiss and IMHO, another nail in the coffin for your overall method of historical analysis, since you are clearly NOT openminded and able to start with a fresh slate.

I do recall you were trying to place Barker at Merion in December and I may have very well been the one to bring up train schedules in jest.  Either way, 100 years later there is no verifiable evidence that Barker had anything to do with Merion besides his one day visit in June.  If may just be time to give up that hope, eh?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Please show me one fact that TMac has presented regarding Barker's December involvement, or how the fact that if he did, it would directly contradict your fact deficient theory of CBM being involved in December 1910?

And allow me to remind you that I counted over a dozen assertions in your essay that only offered "in all likelihood" as a defense or fact in making the assertion.

[Tom MacWood]

For that matter, in re-reading Mike’s post of Francis’s memories, the following logic applies:

Wilson appointed to committee Jan 11
Francis appointed later (his own words)
Francis looking at maps, Francis comes up with land swap

So, how can we conclude the Francis land swap occurred prior to 1911, when there is no evidence of him being involved, either, prior to that time?

Some time ago TEP said the January 11 date was bogus and questioned why you continued to bring it up. Francis did not say when he was appointed only that he was added because of his drawing skills. By the way Francis also said that while the committee was at work Wilson went to the UK to study golf design. I'm not sure what the committee was busy doing in April/May 1912.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Yet another,"please show me one fact" challenge?    I am still waiting for your promised apology from your last "just show me one fact" challenge, and this one is even more ridiculous than the last.  A third grader could answer your latest challenge just by looking a few posts above, but I'm done entertaining your questions, no matter how inane.  

I will say, though, that by continuing to challenge us to show you facts that are right in front of you, you demonstrate just how ill equipped you are to deal with this type of historical analysis.  If you spent a bit more time actually considering the facts and less time grandstanding for your buddy, you might stop making a fool of yourself with these challenges.  

As for you counting assertions in my essay, I never questioned your addition skills, only your analytical skills.  And those aren't worthy of even a half-hearted counter.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

I agree we all have opinions, and they can get quite strong.  Mine ar not emotional at all and are based on what really happens, at least in the 33 years I have been a gca, regarding how projects get put together and credited.  While you may think things were different back then, or should be different now, my points are valid based on how most people see crediting golf course design.  In truth, I support the idea (to the degree its practical) of the "backstory, such as associate "A" did this or that on my or any projects.  Its the next level of golf architecture history.

I know that Brad Klien had all of Ross' train schedules, which he told me he used to recreate Ross schedule for the book.  Real research based on facts!  But something you readily dismiss and IMHO, another nail in the coffin for your overall method of historical analysis, since you are clearly NOT openminded and able to start with a fresh slate.

I do recall you were trying to place Barker at Merion in December and I may have very well been the one to bring up train schedules in jest.  Either way, 100 years later there is no verifiable evidence that Barker had anything to do with Merion besides his one day visit in June.  If may just be time to give up that hope, eh?  

If Brad Klein had all of Ross's train schedules for some reason he did not use them in his book. What I think he probably found (in the Tufts archive) were misc itineraries for a specific week or month, see page 159. I think you may be confused.

Are you certain Baker was only at Merion one day?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I only meant January 1911, and shouldn't have shortened it to January 11, which causes confusion.  I have already agreed that the reading of Francis being added later is probably not right.  He did say he was added, but "later" is an interpretation some of us made.  And, I think we know that Francis (or whoever helped him pen that article) was wrong on the date of the UK trip.  I don't think there was any question that the course was under construction in April/May 1911, is there?

As to using all the train schedules in the book, its another example of shortening for popular writing.  He would only have included railroad timetables if writing a book for the limited universe of Donald Ross fans who are "foamers" (i.e. avid train watchers)  I believe I may be the only member of that demographic!

And, I think you are correct, what Brad had was Donald Ross schedules from his office, and he said he had tracked his travels using the copies of the train tickets those records had.  I don't think Ross had any actual railroad timetables, although Brad said he double checked actual railroad timetables to be sure in a few instances.  The example I recall him telling me about was a club in Kansas that claims Ross designed their course, or stopped by to look at it.  But, Brad used the timetables to confirm the train went through town in the middle of the night or something like that.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

Please show me one fact that TMac has presented regarding Barker's December involvement, or how the fact that if he did, it would directly contradict your fact deficient theory of CBM being involved in December 1910?

And allow me to remind you that I counted over a dozen assertions in your essay that only offered "in all likelihood" as a defense or fact in making the assertion.

It is a theory. It is fact Barker travelled from NYC to Atlanta in December. Barker likely travelled through Philly (twice) going to Atlanta and back. I have no proof he got off in Philly. It is a fact that it was announced in the press on 11/24 that Baker had been hired to design MCC and it is a fact that another paper reported he would be staking out several courses in the December timeframe.

In order for a theory to be taken seriously it has to be plausible, and I think there are enough facts to say the theory is plausible.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

In answer to the first fact challenge, you presented only two words from a Feb letter from Wilson to Oakley and nowhere did that specifically say anything about when Merion was routed, etc.  You said there was more evidence, but you never ponied it up, unless you count you stretching two words in that letter to a six month timeline using your Carnakian skills.

I understood where you were going with that, but I doubt many will be convinced to turn a half piece of evidence into a full fledged fact we are ready to accept.  Its just that simple. Over a dozen of your key essay points really aren't supported as fact.  They are presented as theory with qualifiers.   Its fine that you presented it, and as you say, its fine for me to disagree, which I am.

EDIT: David, I will apologize to this degree - I went back and looked and my specific question was to prove that HW and CBM had contact in JANUARY 1911.  I have already agreed that they probably did, if for nothing else to start scheduling the NGLA meeting and most likely, revisit preliminary matters CBM discussed back in June, like soil samples.  I mentioned topo maps, but from the letter, I gather those were already made by that time (and I have always been interested in the timing of that, as well)

My disagreements with your theory remain focued on the "routed prior to Nove 15, 1910" portions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I think your summary of your theory presents your thoughts well, perhaps better than intended.  The word "plausible" jumps off the page at me, as I doubt true historians aim for "plausible."

And, in just my opinion (and I seem to be the only one speakin up here) I respectfully suggest that you have some facts, contested facts, and coincidences making up the bulk of that theory.  By contested, I mean documents from MCC.  I can understand, given CBM's amateur status, why they might not mention their intention to use his assistance, but would presume that in Nov/Dec that if they had hired a professional architect, some record of that agreement would be in place, or at least mentioned in the minutes, rather than the vague phrase "experts."  The lawyers seemed to do everything else with regards to the acquistion of the property to the "T."

Also, I think the minutes referring to Barker were very specific that McConnell brought in Barker, but I suppose that is up for interpreation.  The idea that the land guy (golfer or not) brings someone in to see if its feasible is pretty standard.  And Lloyd was friends with CBM, and its doubtful he would bring in CBM and Barker, but I guess anything is possible, if not plausible.

[Mike Cirba]

By the way Francis also said that while the committee was at work Wilson went to the UK to study golf design. I'm not sure what the committee was busy doing in April/May 1912.


Tom,

You're kidding, no?    Have you ever been involved in a golf course project?   What do YOU think they'd be doing six months prior to course opening?

As far as your theory about Barker desigining the course while hopping off the train, no, what I posted earlier doesn't address it.

It's self-evidently flawed and inaccurate and I trust current and future historians and interested observers would consider it completely baseless and without merit or justification so no rebuttal is really necessary.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Rather than simply try to deflect and confuse the issue, why not just admit that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the golf course was routed before November 15th, 1910?

If the boundaries of the purchase weren't determined by December 21st, 1910 then why do you still pretend that's not a fact?   If we know that Richard Francis' Land Swap provided the final piece of the routing that permitted the boundaries to be determined, why do you still pretend that happened before November 15th when it clearly didn't?

Frankly, I agree with Jeff that you do yourself a disservice by not correcting obvious errors in your IMO such as that one that are simply meant to discount Wilson's involvement.   If your goal is to say CBM was not given enough credit, you're fishing in the wrong stream and end up looking obstinate and needlessly argumentative by failing to admit error in this key area.

Tom's wacky Barker theory aside, I think there's a lot better case to be made for some design input from CBM, but it ALL happened after January 1911, and it ALL happened in conjunction with and under the responsibility of Hugh Wilson's committee.

The problem is, that reasonable goal is compromised by a competing and factually irreconcilable goal, which is to diminish Hugh Wilson's authorship for the course and that's why you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.   The historical facts simply don't support you.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I probably shouldn't go here, and .......delete.......................decided not to go there.

[Mike Cirba]

Shivas,

I think both points you make are true but would simply mention that 1) Merion didn't secure the land in question prior to late December 1910 (actually, HG Lloyd bought the land under his name at that time), and 2) Hugh Wilson's Committee didn't exist until January 1911.

So yes, he did get right on it immediately, but only as events transpired.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shiv,

No one thinks HW was involved back in June 1910.  So, the two possible interpretations of "CBM spoke of you and I immediately write to you" are that immediately refers to 1) his appointment to the committee, which we know occurred January 1911, or 2) a phone call (since CBM "spoke" of Oakley) between CBM and HJ (or given protocol, between friends Lloyd and CBM, perhaps with Wilson listening in and being given an intro, given it appears Wilson was  a notch down the status ladder from those two)

So, you are right, and David is probably right that there was a January phone call between CBM and Wilson/Lloyd to establish the next phase of CBM's relationship with Merion.


My problem is that he takes that letter, and the other 1999 between Wilson and Oakley/Piper, and deduces that Wilson (or Lloyd or others at MCC) had been in contact with CBM since their one day visit in June, and that somehow, CBM had routed the golf course, Francis had tweaked it, and it was in place by Nov. 1910, even though MCC had it, they chose not to show it on their maps etc, etc. etc..  

That he deduced so many things from a few words in that letter makes me want to relabel his essay from the "Missing Faces of Merion" to the "Missing Sansabelt Slacks of Merion" given how much strecth there is in there.

But in all seriousness, a couple of questions for anyone who knows:

Those 2000 agronomy letters stretched over what time frame?  How many a week were exchanged during the heat of planning and construction?

Do we really think Wilson would work the same way with CBM?  

First, it would be harder to absorb design ideas via the phone or letter, without maps, sketches, etc.  And, they say they got a "good start" in March when they visited NGLA.  Would there be any more letter type contact before March to discuss design and what could it have accomplished?

As above, there were some status differences.  And, CBM was busy with NGLA, other clubs, being a stockbroker, etc.  We know of a Feb 1/Jan 31 phone call, a March two day visit to NGLA, and an April one day visit back to Merion.  After the committee got started in January, that is one contact a month between the two parties until the design was finalized.

Given all CBM had to do, isn't that a fairly reasonable time to figure he devoted only to Merion?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shiv,

If you read David's theory, they were out there blasting dyamite before they owned the property, to justify his theory on the timing of the Francis land swap.  Kind of a really big, loud soil sample dig! 

Seriously, I think they would have avoided any sort of indication to the general public of their interest in the land, lest the landowners raise the price.  They bought the Dallas Estate quite secretly through a front man.

I think you hit it on the head in your question via point 2.  Land deals just take a while to put together, with all the legal stuff. I think we compress the "olden days" and wonder why "nothing" happened from June til Nov.  In reality, quite a bit did - they bought more property, formed corporations, etc., brought it to a club vote, issued bonds, etc.

Also, while they didn't necessarily follow NGLA to an exact T, the time frame from looking at land to securing it and beginning construction is identical  - June to April the next year.  With two examples, I think we can presume that is how long deals took.

Lastly, they would know from CBM that construction starts in April.  There were no big CD and Bid Packages.  Design didn't take all that long, so to presume it had to start the year before is probably not right.

Just MO.

[Tom MacWood]

By the way Francis also said that while the committee was at work Wilson went to the UK to study golf design. I'm not sure what the committee was busy doing in April/May 1912.


Tom,

You're kidding, no?    Have you ever been involved in a golf course project?   What do YOU think they'd be doing six months prior to course opening?

As far as your theory about Barker desigining the course while hopping off the train, no, what I posted earlier doesn't address it.

It's self-evidently flawed and inaccurate and I trust current and future historians and interested observers would consider it completely baseless and without merit or justification so no rebuttal is really necessary.

Yes, they were busy watching grass grow. Construction had been completed the year before and they had seeded the course the year before too. They were so busy Wilson decided to go on a European vacation.

Regarding that 12/21 letter you posted, do you have the Nov. 23 letter he refers to?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Yes, I do have the November 23rd letter...it's in the "Nature Faker" book.

It's fairly lengthy and talks about all the details of forming a corporation that would lease the land proposed golf golf back to the cricket club and if I keep copying snippets there would be no reason for you to purchase your own copy!   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()