Bryan,
It is very difficult for me to carry on a conversation about this when everyone of our exchanges is followed by the types of misrepresentations and ridiculousness and false accusations that follow your last post. I never claimed Merion was changing their record or withholding anything. TEPaul is not even a member of Merion and doesn't speak for Merion, and I have been told by Merion who has the authority to speak for Merion on these matters and and sure as heck isn't either of the Flynn Fakers. And when Jeff Brauer is going so far as to add and subtract words from what he presents as DIRECT QUOTES of my work, that is not "inferring" or "speculating." If anything, "pretend" is much to kind a word for what these guys are doing here.
Also Bryan, with respect, I don't consider you a neutral reader. I don't believe in such things. Your subjectivities and biases are different than mine or Mike's, but that doesn't make you neutral. You try to keep your subjectivities and biases in check, but then so do I. I don't think your interpretations are any more plausible than mine just because you consider yourself "neutral."
1. We agree that Lesley was reporting on behalf of the Golf Committee. My understanding was that he was the chair of that Committee. However, I do not believe that Hugh Wilson was part of the Golf Committee in the spring of 1911 or before. I could be misremembering or mistaken, but I do not think that Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee and Merion's Golf Committee were the same thing. I think their only overlap was H.G. Lloyd.
- You say you see no evidence of who wrote it, but there is strong evidence of who wrote it! It is written in first person! First person is a strong indicator that the person delivering the report is the person who wrote the report! That is the way our language works. I have written plenty of things which were ultimately delivered by another, but I have never had anyone ever report on my experiences in first person, as if they were their own!
- But let's just stick to where we agree. Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee. So then, who was it that went to NGLA? The Golf Committee? Or the Construction Committee? Or some combination? Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems to have been there. But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well.
- And if Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee, then who at Merion was in charge of getting the course planned? Wilson's sub-committee, or Lesley's Golf Committee?
- It matters to this discussion because it is not entirely clear that Wilson's Construction Committee had anything to do with the planning even after they were appointed. Based on what we have been told, MERION'S 1910-1911 RECORDS NEVER MENTION WILSON OR HIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAVING ANYTHING TO DO THE DESIGN.
2. As for the "many different courses" we have some agreement. To answer your questions about whether I am just speculating and inferring: We know of the Barker rough routing. CBM/HJW suggested that Merion add the land near the clubhouse. Francis tells that with the swap he changed the routing and that Lloyd approved it.
3. You accuse me of dissecting the text regarding the statement that they "rearranged the course." I don't get this. All the other interpretations just ignore or read this part as meaningless. When Lesley reported on many different courses, you agree he was likely discussing routings. Yet here when he wrote of rearranging the course, he is no longer speaking of routings? I don't get that at all. And I don't think it makes sense for them to say the rearranged the course (singular) if then the also came up with five different routings. Taken as a totality, it seems that they rearranged the course, and that there were five different iterations or variances of this course.
4. As for the five different plans, I think it unreasonable for Mike et. al to conclude that CBM was NOT involved in the creation of those five plans. And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process -- they went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them; he came back to check on them and made the final decision. Not unlike todays architect might direct his associates.
I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation. If Merion wasn't trying to implement what they had learned from CBM then why have him return to go over it again and make the final decision?
5. And that is what I think you are missing. I readily admit we don't know exactly what happened. I am trying to figure out what is most likely given everything we know. Their approach seems to be that if I cannot prove to an absolutely certainty what exactly happened, then we have to accept what they guess happened. That is not the way these things work. The question is, which makes more sense? Whatever disagreements you have with my understanding, there are tenfold problems and shortcomings with theirs.
What is more likely?
-That whoever went to NGLA sat their with ears in fingers not learning anything, then miraculously came up with five wholly distinct routings that had nothing to do with what they learned at NGLA, and then CBM/HJW just happened to show up, saying "Wow, that never occurred to me, but if you do it your course will be great," and they ignored this, too, yet just happened to like the same version without considering his opinion and they went with that?
-Or that they went to NGLA for direction for what to do, and CBM gave him that direction, and they took his advice to heart and returned home to try and implement that advice, but they still weren't sure, so they brought him back again to go over everything again and make the final decision?
It seems a pretty obvious choice to me.
6. You state that the only remaining issue "is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come 'up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!'"
I disagree. I think you are falling into the exact same thing I discuss immediately above. You seem to think the standard for them is one of mere possibility but the standard for me is one of absolute irrefutable proof.
Do you understand what I am getting at here? It is a question of methodology and standards of proof. You seem to have a double standard here. They have proven little or nothing, and it seems from my perspective that my theory is by far the most plausible and reasonable. Yet you say that my theory must fail unless I prove that Merion couldn't have come up with on their own? I don't get it? Since when is that the standard?
Why is mere possibility good enough for their theory? Why is absolute irrefutable proof the standard for me?
Or maybe I have it wrong? What exactly is your methodology here, Bryan?
________________________________
I almost forgot. I don't know who drew up the five plans or when they were drawn up. Given the totality of the Lesley report, it seems that one of two things are most likely:
1.The five variations were conceived at NGLA and then tried out at Merion.
2.The five variations were a product of some ambiguity, confusion, or lack of clarity in the single course they had come up with at NGLA.