Bryan,
I think you and I have different ideas of what "logically tenable" means.
1. What makes more sense? Let's assume you are correct, and that "others" refers to
Alps holes as opposed to what I think is the more logical reading,
other holes at Merion.
To paraphrase, your reading leaves us with:
Merion's Alps hole sucks, but many of the other Alps Holes, as laid out by Macdonald, are really great. This makes no sense, because there were not many other Alps holes as laid out by CBM.
Merion's was only the second Alps Hole CBM is known to have laid out.
So no, I don't think your reading is logically tenable. Nor do I think it is a "who knows" situation between two equally tenable readings. THERE WERE NOT "MANY ALPS HOLES" LAID OUT BY CBM.
Less importantly, I don't think you are following the valid "grammatical link" as you claim. "Others" is an indefinite pronoun and as such refers to
unspecified things in this case a group or category of things. So one just cannot go backwards in the text to the first noun one hits. One must actually think about it a bit. The two possibilities seem to be either "many of the other holes at Merion . . ." or "many of the other Alps holes . . ." Since CBM hadn't laid out "many other alps holes" the former makes much more sense.
Also, the article was about Merion, not a critique of CBM's templates nationwide. It would make no sense to break into some other conversation for one sentence.
2. What was Findlay willing to discuss? Again I think you are stretching beyond the realm of reason. He was willing to discuss Merion's holes because he discussed about Merion's Alps hole. Given that Findlay rips into Merion's 10th hole, it should come no surprise that he immediately softens the blow with a glowing yet nonspecific line about the quality of many of the other holes.
And the answer to your question is, NO. I don't think that his statement calling many other holes "really great" amounts to much of a discussion about Merion at all. He didn't mention or describe a single other a single hole or feature, nor did he make any sort of pronouncement as to the overall quality of the course. And judging how much emphasis he puts on growing and conditioning (to tout Pickering) I don't think it unreasonable to think he was commenting on the layout as is, as opposed to the overall quality.
Haven't you noticed that almost all these articles have some sort of disclaimer about how they will not know the quality of the course for certain until the course is mature, but then they go on to talk about the holes anyway? Well Findlay does this less so than many of the rest!
In sum, Findlay was discussing Merion, and Merion's 10th hole. Regardless of what he meant about not yet judging the course, he ripped Merion's 10th and not surprisingly he followed up the insult by saying many of the other holes were great. That makes the most sense to me. Reading in some general statement about many other of CBM's Alps holes makes no sense, especially because there were not many other CBM Alps holes.
_____________________________________________
As for the rest, I think you overestimate what I take as fact, versus what I take as theory. It is pretty much all theory to me, depending upon the state of the evidence. But some theories are more sound than others.
Also, I think you have misconstrued my point to Jeff, or perhaps I was to flippant in making the point.
Jeff has essentially been chirping like a third grader that
I think I am soo smart, but I am not as smart as I think I am, and other grade school crap like
if he and his pals believe it, it must be correct, and claiming that
by questioning Merion's accepted history and the views of him and his Faker buddies, I am really saying I am smarter than all of them. I don't see it that way. For me it is not about who is smarter, it is about who follows facts, reason, and sound methodology. I trust my own own judgement, especially when compared to the track records of the Fakers and their Merionette.
______________________________
Jeff Brauer,
It doesn't take hours to understand Findlay's sentence. I understood it immediately. You and the Fakers will probably never understand it because it would undermine your position if you actually tried to understand it.
And you again confuse you and your Faker buddies as some sort of majority. You also forget that many important aspects of Merion's accepted history were wrong, and that only a few of us figured that out, much to the consternation of your fictional majority. Bottom line for me is that I don't care what other think. I trust my judgment when it comes to understanding and analyzing the record.
You can cast aspersions at me all you want, but your actual understanding and analysis don't back it up. As an example of the quality of your analysis, you wrote immediately above:
Or, him thinking, for instance, that Hugh Wilson, who wrote loads of letters for the construction committee, was probably signing for the golf committee in Feb 1911. Could it have happened? Yeah. How much histronics do you have to go through to conclude that the letter Mike posts bucks the trend of what he was doing at the time?
This is pretty laughable since TEPaul has come close to conceding that he was not writing for the Construction Committee as we know it. Go back and read what he wrote about the evolution (or his take on the evolution) of the committees.
Wilson wasn't appointed to the Construction Committee, but according to TEPaul to something else and eventually the committee evolved into the construction committee. Now there may be some "histronics" there, or perhaps even some histrionics, but they are his not mine.
But what it really shows your shoddy methodology and your lack of understanding how this process works. You seem to think it is my responsibility to DISPROVE whatever you believe, rather than YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
I readily admit that it is
possible that Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Toulmin, and Griscom were appointed to the "Construction Committee" before February 1, 1911. u]But what is possible is not necessarily so[/u].
As for me, I don't know for sure what happened with these various committees, and that is what I am trying to figure out. On the other hand your entire theory rests on this particular version of the Construction Committee having been out there in the February snow planning the course.
So prove your case.
Prove to me that Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Toulmin, and Griscom were appointed to the "Construction Committee" before February 1, 1911. And in doing so, make this jibe with TEPaul's statement which seems to contradict this.
Prove that this particular committee came up with the final plan.
You demanded a statement in the minutes to prove my case, so let's have those statements about these guys.