[ForkaB]

Wayne

I did recognise the hype in Ross's statements.

Good stuff re: the Cascades.  To me, this (why can one architect see nothing on a piece of land, and another build a great course there?) is far more interesting than trying to pick nits about who was awarded which commission and why.

Cheers

Rich

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Another interesting fact Travis was nearly shutout on LI too....could his poor relationship with Macdonald hve been a factor?

Tom MacWood-

I wouldn't say Travis was nearly shut out on LI.  He wasn't as big of a producer as Ross, Tillinghast, Raynor, etc. were.  To my knowledge, most all of his courses are located in the Northeastern states--MD and states north of there.  He has arguably one of the top 3 on the island (GCGC) and only a handful of courses around the country.  I don't think this is a question of Travis being shut out, I simply think this production was a lot smaller.  I think his playing achievements in particular gave him credibility with golf club founders when designing courses.  Remember, the US Am was a much more important championship in his day.  

[TEPaul]

"To me, this (why can one architect see nothing on a piece of land, and another build a great course there?) is far more interesting than trying to pick nits about who was awarded which commission and why."

Rich:

This is far more interesting to me too, both in the earlier Golden Age and also today.

I'm beginning to believe that some architects simply have far greater imagination to see the less than obvious than others do---and most ironically, I'm not sure it even has that much to do with how good any architects are ultimately---it's all just a different approach or perhaps simply very different talents! The ones who don't have raw talent and vision to make something out of nothing though probably are the ones who sometimes create courses that aren't that interesting. To me, Ross maybe the most obvious example of that.

Broadly speaking (and all this is only my personal opinion) I think some architects are very good at imagining how to absolutely maximize almost everything a site and potential hole landforms may usefully give them NATURALLY while other architects may either miss some or most of this and simply see the image or vision of what they can manufacture out of various landforms---even those landforms others may see as naturally useful!

I have a sense Ross may have very much been the former and it might explain a sort of standardized routing and hole modus that's fairly obvious on most his courses---certainly the more topographical ones (high tee and green sites with intervening valleys) while an early architect like Flynn saw the possiblities in most any landform, no matter how different it may have been naturally!

In a certain sense a mind like Flynn's in both total routing and also various landform uses may have been something like that scene in "Rain Man" where Hoffman looked at the spilled matches from the match box on the floor and went----ZIP---"Uh-oh, there're three matches missing from a full box!" He just looked a a hundred or so matches lying in a jumble and had the ability to instantly mentally count them, where someone like me would have to spent five minutes counting them all by twos to figure out even remotely how many were in the jumble much less if any were missing from a full box.

Flynn was simply the latter type to me, something like an architectural "Rain Man". I think he just had an ability or talent to look at a general atmosphere or unarranged and unobvious group of pieces (potential hole landforms) and make instant sense out of it all where others would have to spend far more time putting the pieces together slowly and in various ways.

That could explain why a Flynn might say a site like Cascades had potential while others might only see the severe topographical obstacles in that raw site. What actually happened with Cascades, I think, is he told the client it had potential to be terrific but that the client didn't have the money to make it so. The client fixed that by bascically saying "I don't care about that ---just do it." And of course it certainly helped that Flynn had an engineer for a partner to put his visions easily into reality. Indian Creek is very much this way too but from the opposite extreme of Cascades (at first appearing to have too many natural obstacles for a golf course) to something of such blank canvas as to hardly know where to begin like Indian Creek.

Obviously Macdonald had some real talent to visualize or imagine something out of nothing (Lido) or even something out of something that might appear too much (Yale) and then the visual ability to go to real extremes to create it. Of course he too had his partner engineer to put the detail of it to the reality.

I think Tillinghast probably had that ability to do it both ways too. Mackenzie, on the other hand, may have been a super quick study in how to use natural landforms as they were without that much sense of how to massively change them---or maybe that style (MacD/Raynor just never sat well with him being the ultra natural appearing architect he apparently was.

I think Crump probably had a hard time visualizing natural landforms but spent so much time at PVGC that he got better at it---plus he did have Colt to almost instantly correct some of his initial confusion or lack of initial vision.

But Ross seems to me to be the other way---and that might explain why his more obvious topographical sites for golf are so much better than his flatter ones----unless given years to work on it such as Pinehurst #2.

Today, an architect who has almost unlimited ability to visualize something out of nothing or something out of mindbending complexity is probably Tom Fazio. I'm not sure he has the time or inclination though to use something wholly as it is!

An architect like Coore I think has a real talent to visualize how to use the unobvious and to also use very small natural things and built hole concepts around them. I think Doak probably does too but understands how to fix anything that seems problematic. I think Gil Hanse has a very fertile imagination to use something apparently radical as well as make something from pratically nothing.

I think this is an interesting subject and although some architects may bring very different raw talents to the table, in the end either one may work out interesting and may work out well.

Desmond Muirhead in his later architectural years and what he saw or didn't see? That's probably too complex to even get into!  

[ForkaB]

Tom

I had the pleasure of playing a match with Tom Doak last week at Painswick, and he is absolutely the best reader of greens that I have ever seen.  I told him that if he ever got tired of designing great golf courses he could make a damn good living as a caddie!

Added to his demonstrations of this very practical skill were a few comments on the lay of the land that convinced me that Tom sees more things out there than we mortals.  I suspect that Coore does too, and maybe Crenshaw's incredible putting ability was related to an "eye" for the contours of putts which has carreid on to his design career.

Howard Gardner tells us (rightly, I think) that there are many types of "intelligence."  I'm guessing that great designers like Doak, Coore and Crenshaw have an extraordinary ability to visualize how a golf ball might react over various types of terrain.

Maybe that's one of the key reasons why they build such memorable golf courses......

[T_MacWood]

Doug
After analyzing Travis's career it is my view he was nearly shutout on LI. He totally revamped GCGC--starting in 1906--as head of the green committee. In 1907 he was a consultant to Emmet in the laying out of Salisbury Links (which eventually became Cherry Valley). In 1916 Travis decided to become a full fledged golf architect. One of his first solo designs was Garden City CC. It was his first and last solo design on Long Island. In early 1917 the USGA ruled golf architects who recieved commission lost their amateur status--I don't believe the timing was a coincidence.

Travis design career took him up and down the Eastern seaboard, from Canada and Maine to Sea Is. & Jeckyl Is, Ga. Despite not getting projects on LI Travis's most productive region was the NYC area--seven major jobs in Westchester & suburban NJ.

When the USGA ruled that architect who got paid were professionals, CB Macdonald was given as the model of the true amateur golf designer. Macdonald was also involved in the Schenectady putter contraversey--as the lone American representative on the R&A rules committee. It makes you wonder if Macdonald was a vendictive person who may have effected Travis's opportunities on LI.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I would have thought that every golf architect was good at reading greens, because it's essential that we can figure out how to make the surface drainage work on them.  But you're probably right that someone like Bill Coore or myself, who places more emphasis on green contouring in our work, reads them better.

Certainly, though, when I'm designing courses I am visualizing how they will work, and how the ball will react, rather than just how they look.

To everyone:

The lesson about Ross and opportunities is that he didn't have so many because he wasn't a publicity seeker.  His book wasn't published until fifty years after he was dead.  There weren't a lot of magazine articles written about him.  He didn't care much about his "image," but as a result of that, many movers and shakers failed to pay attention to his work.

[TEPaul]

"Macdonald was also involved in the Schenectady putter contraversey--as the lone American representative on the R&A rules committee. It makes you wonder if Macdonald was a vendictive person who may have effected Travis's opportunities on LI."

Tom MacW:

For whatever reasons Macdonald may not have helped or actually hurt Travis's architectural career in Long Island but you cite the Schnectedy putter controversy as more evidence that Macdonald may have been opposed to Travis. Do you have any idea what Macdonald's position was on the banning of the Schnectedy putter?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I know what Macdonald's public postion was after the fact...he calimed he was an advocate. As the lone American representative on the Rules Committee, he no doubt was devastated by the universal condemnation of the R&A's decision on the both sides of the Atlantic. Nearly everyone was critical of the decison from Darwin and British golf Illustrated to everyone in the US.

 He claimed he was unaware they were contemplating banning the Schenectady (the head of the committee a fellow named Burn was painted as a rogue acting on his own), and that when CB learned of the action Burn took he warned the committee of their potential mistake from an American perspective....of course by this time the shit had already hit the fan. When it was brought to official vote by the committee...one gentleman proposed they give the Schenectady a pass, second by another gent (neither was CB), but the committee shot them down and it was outlawed.

Travis was dubious of Macdonald's account, calling it "pecularly interesting" and pointing out an omision or two in his report. He went on to emphasize that Macdonald was not representing the USGA
 (he was member of St.Andrews--which was requirement--and appointed by St.andrews)..implying he was not looking out for the best interests of the American golfer....he called this anonomily "quite un-American". He suggested the USGA appoint someone to represent them with the R&A.

The commonly told story today is Macdonald was an advocate of the Schenectady...Travis's position seems to have been forgoten.

TD
I would agree Ross was modest in comparison to some of his rivals, but he certainly got his fair share of publicity. His name was a constant fxiture in the golf magazines of the day. He also did a great number of interviews in local newspapers...NY Times included. His courses dominated the US Open in the teens and twenties...which no doubt is a reflection of his prowess among the movers and shakers choosing championship venues.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Doug
After analyzing Travis's career it is my view he was nearly shutout on LI. He totally revamped GCGC--starting in 1906--as head of the green committee. In 1907 he was a consultant to Emmet in the laying out of Salisbury Links (which eventually became Cherry Valley). In 1916 Travis decided to become a full fledged golf architect. One of his first solo designs was Garden City CC. It was his first and last solo design on Long Island. In early 1917 the USGA ruled golf architects who recieved commission lost their amateur status--I don't believe the timing was a coincidence.

Travis design career took him up and down the Eastern seaboard, from Canada and Maine to Sea Is. & Jeckyl Is, Ga. Despite not getting projects on LI Travis's most productive region was the NYC area--seven major jobs in Westchester & suburban NJ.

When the USGA ruled that architect who got paid were professionals, CB Macdonald was given as the model of the true amateur golf designer. Macdonald was also involved in the Schenectady putter contraversey--as the lone American representative on the R&A rules committee. It makes you wonder if Macdonald was a vendictive person who may have effected Travis's opportunities on LI.

Tom-
Interesting points raised here concerning Travis.  I still hold to the view that he was a smaller operation, and thus not capable of building the sheer number of courses designed by Donald Ross.  Back to your other point, interesting coincidences with the R&A decision outlawing the Schenectady putter following Travis' victory in the British Amateur, and the USGA decisions regarding professional/amateur criteria   The recent issue of Golf Magazine has an article on Travis, which details his victory in that championship.  Certainly interesting.  
However, if CBM was as vindictive as you say, how or why could he have let a friend of his like Emmet, a fellow blue blood, collaborate with Travis on Cherry Valley and let Travis have any work at all in the NY area, especially a place like Garden City?  Do you think this is a bit strange?  
In any case, it's going to be push/pull for a long time.  Each of the designers is unique, and their particular flavors give these great courses on the island their own character.  

BTW-which courses are you counting for Travis' NY metro work?  I would count Westchester, Round Hill, North Jersey, Hollywood, GCCC, GCGC, Cherry Valley (my eyes see more Travis than Emmet here), and White Beeches as Travis--which brings the total to eight.  I realize Hollywood is more NJ Shore, but it was a summer resort for NY'ers.  

[T_MacWood]

Doug
Travis lived on LI....he did not design a course on LI from 1916 to his death in 1927 (but else where in the metro) because his production was not large enough? I don't understand your logic.

"However, if CBM was as vindictive as you say, how or why could he have let a friend of his like Emmet, a fellow blue blood, collaborate with Travis on Cherry Valley and let Travis have any work at all in the NY area, especially a place like Garden City?  Do you think this is a bit strange?"

No. Salisbury was built in 1906-07. In 1906 Emmet, Macdonald and Travis were good friends. The three of them (along with Whigham) were all involved in the early stages of the NGLA. (By the way I did not say Macdonald was a vendictive person...I wondered if he was)

It is common knowledge that Emmet and Travis went from best friends to never speeking to one another. You can credit Travis more for Cherry Valley if you'd like, however you'd be wrong. Emmet was credited with the design with Salisbury when the course opened, no metion of Travis. I was being generous in saying Travis colaborated, I found one article several years later that mentions Travis colaborating. In fact Travis never took credit for anything at Salisbury as far as I can tell. (Although he was keenly aware and very interested in the project...that is why IMO it is fair to say it was a collaboration)

You can count his courses in the NY area any way you'd like....the result is still same. When Travis's dedicated himself to golf architecture in 1916....GCCC was his first solo design on LI and his last...despite the fact he was quite active in the region.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug & Tom,

Where were the "Old Country Club and Yahnundasis Golf Club" located ?

Travis is credited with Cherry Valley, wihich is just down the road from GCGC, in 1907

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Pat-

 Yahnundasis is upstate NY, in the town of New Hartford-in the Utica area.   Old Country Club I have heard of, but not certain where it was located.  Perhaps one of the LI courses that are now an expressway, strip mall, or homes?  I seem to remember an "Old Country Club" being mentioned in America's Linksland.  

BTW-Pat-what do you know about Salibury Links (NKA Cherry Valley).  Was the original Emmet, then redesign by Travis, or was it the opposite, or was it a collaborative effort?  I have only seen Cherry Valley from the road, (Cherry Valley Av and then, I think, 1st st. in GC) and the holes I have seen remind me more of Travis than Emmet.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

If that's the way you think Macdonald was acting regarding the Schnectedy putter controversy, or if that's the way Travis thought Macdonald was acting or reacting, I certainly can see why Macdonald and Travis may have had a real problem with each other.

The contemporaneous and voluminous letters Macdonald supplied in his own book would seem to outline a pretty clear and unclouded record of the entire Schnectedy putter controversy and the timeline on the whole thing and leading to the ultimate decision and resolution of the issue between the R&A and USGA. It also would seem to outline well Macdonald's postion on the whole thing.  Labbance’s book “The Old Man” also outlines the entire Schnectedy issue from beginning to end 41 years later.

Macdonald had no problem personally with the putter and frankly he didn't believe at all in the standardization of balls or impliments thinking it really didn't matter and traditionally golf had been fine without any form of standardization (outlawing equipment). Macdonald also pointed out that the true Schnectedy putter controversy broke about 6-7 years after Travis's 1904 British Amateur victory and frankly had little to do with Travis or the Schnectedy and more to do with a question from a club by the name of Nga Motu in New Zealand in 1908 asking if a croquet mallet putter was permissible. It was basically a question of what the definition of center shafting was and what all that included (the Schnectedy or not).

Macdonald was one of only a few members of the USGA’s Rules committee for a very long time (probably for his connections to St Andrews). Travis was also a member of the USGA Rules committee for a time beginning in 1902. Macdonald was also appointed to be the USGA’s representative with the R&A’s Rules of Golf Committee on the suggestion of Horace Huchinson to resolve certain rules questions that were coming up in America that were not covered under the R&A Rules. This proposed USGA representation by Macdonald on the R&A Rules of Golf Committee was intended to forstall any potential or future total rift on the rules of golf between the R&A and USGA.

Macdonald's primary mission on the rules committee (and on the USGA) was to see to it that unity within the rules and within the two organizations of golf responsible for them be maintained and he understood as well as anyone that that would take some necessary compromises---something it seems he did a very good job of encouraging and managing---all for the end result of unity which he apparently felt was of ultimate importance to the future of golf in America and around the world.

If Walter Travis felt Macdonald was personally opposing him or somehow being sneaky or doing something “peculiarly interesting” (in some way negative or disadvantageous to Travis) on the issue of the Schnectedy putter then it seems to me that Walter Travis very well may have been more of a self-possessed pain in the ass then many of us may have previously been aware.

The record and history of what happened to Travis treatment-wise at Sandwich in 1904 where he won the British Amateur is clear and it appears to have been a combination of Travis being somewhat difficult as well as the British amateur contingent being generally and downright rude to Travis and his entire American contingent. It seems quite clear that the attitude towards and treatment of Travis and his contingent at Sandwich in 1904 had as much to do with national pride in their golf and amateur golfers as anything else.

And if what you say about Travis's opinion on this is true it certainly could explain why he and Macdonald did not get along and also perhaps why Macdonald dropped him as a design associate on NGLA and also perhaps did not do anything for his architectural career or even shut him out on Long Island.

[TEPaul]

"Back to your other point, interesting coincidences with the R&A decision outlawing the Schenectady putter following Travis' victory in the British Amateur, and the USGA decisions regarding professional/amateur criteria."

It should not be construed that Walter Travis and his use of the Schnectedy putter in winning the 1904 British Amateur was the cause of the ban of that putter or even that the Schnectedy itself was the cause of the ban. The issue that led to the banning of the Schnectedy (and all croquet mallet clubs) did not even come up until 1908 and it came up as a result of a question from a club in New Zealand that had nothing to do with Travis or the Schnectedy.

And although the decision on amateur status did involve Travis it did not come up until the later teens and definitely did not only involve Travis or come up solely because of him.  

[TEPaul]

"However, if CBM was as vindictive as you say,....."

Doug:

If that is in fact what Tom MacW is implying here I think a clear reading and understanding of the record regarding Travis and Macdonald and the issues of the Schnectedy putter, its eventual ban by the R&A but not the USGA, as well as Travis's temporary loss of his amateur status and Macdonald's part in all that will be proven wrong.

[Paul_Turner]

There's a long and critical article about NGLA in the magazine that Travis edited (American Golfer).  It criticises the number of blind shots and actually uses Colt's previously published essay as a reference to bolster its case.  The main competing magazine (Golf-became Golf Illustrated) then counters; again using Colt's essay!

I have them somewhere.

[T_MacWood]

Paul
That was a debate between Travis and Emmet where Travis used Colt's writings to support his case.

Doug/Pat
Flushing GC (Old Country Club) was one of the courses Travis played when he was first introduced to the game, there was member at Flushing who helped teach the Old Man. In the book the 'Old Man' it said he consulted in 1902 at Flushing. I've looked into and I'm not sure what he did there.

Salisbury was designed by Emmet in 1907 (assisted by Travis). The course went from public to private, changing its name to Cherry Valley. Emmet supposedly made further changes in 1916.

TE
I'm not certain the truth of what happened with Macdonald and the Schenectady. I'm simply bringing out the other side of the story. Macdonald had his side of the story (expressed after strong condemnation) and Travis had his view. If you are relying on Macdonald's book and The Old Man you are only getting one side of the story. I prefer to look at all angles.

John Low and Horace Hutchinson (perhaps Macdonald's two closest friends in the UK) supported the R&A position.

The speculation at the time as to why the putter was banned in May 1910 was an extensive article Travis wrote recalling every detail of his victory (and not so great experience) at Sandwich (March 1910). It was a very contraversial account that offended a number of people across the pond.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I don't know what it is (what the reasons Travis gives) you're referring to about the reasons the Schnectedy putter was part of a banning by the R&A. Whatever it is---Travis article you refer to or whatever, you should make that available or tell us where to find it.

Macdonald's account of the app. 15 year situation involving the whole thing and more is all there for the record and it's not just what he said later about it---it's the actual letter writing and decision making between those who were involved in the decision. It just doesn't get much more direct than that. This is a point, a situation and a time where you should just put aside your articles and editorials and take a very close look at the actual record of that situation and maybe then you could decide better for yourself without your old articles and editorial comments of that situation. The actual record is all right there in black and white and it very well may not have been for those who wrote about it in the articles you're citing even back then. We do struggle on here many times to try to recreate the actual record (much of which no longer exists) but this time it seems we have it in spades!

For instance, you wondered why Macdonald himself didn't defend Travis when the actual R&A vote was taken on it about seven years after 1904. He didn't because he apparently wasn't there--he was in America. His reaction and response to it is telling when it comes to Travis's part and point that you seem to be outlining. In a very real way, in my opinion, Macdonald did defend the Schnectedy (and probably Travis as a result indirectly), it's just that Travis didn't seem to understand that.

It looks to me also that it was directly because of Macdonald's really insightful speech (reprinted in his book) to the USGA in 1911 that a real rift between the R&A and the USGA regarding the entire code of the rules of golf was averted and that the Schnectedy apparently never was banned by the USGA. Macdonald's use of a logical loophole within the R&A Rules Committees on rules was the reason for this.

If you ask me Travis, if he really did feel Macdonald had done something disadvantageous to him, was more than a bit of a dunce or at least an ingrate! And this alone may have been the primary reason Macdonald came to not like the man. Macdonald did also say in his book that Travis's reaction (presumably in writing many years later) was undignified and uncalled for. Presumably this means that if Travis was in fact trying to claim that the Schnectedy putter being banned had something to do with him and his treatment at Sandwich in 1904, that that was simply not the case and again, Macdonald does appear in his book to supply the complete record proving that.

What I think you should look at more carefully is that Travis was not part of the making of some of those various decisions and the reasons why but Macdonald very much was.

One of the real ironies here regarding what you're saying is that in many direct ways because of Macdonald the Schnectedy putter never was banned in America and matter of fact Travis made money in royalties on the name of it both while he was alive as well as his estate after he died. You should also know again, that the putter never was banned in America but the R&A did not unban it until app 1952!

[TEPaul]

Macdonald had his side of the story (expressed after strong condemnation)....."

Tom MacW:

What could you possibly mean by that? What you need to do is start putting aside these articles and editorial comments of that time you so much depend upon and just read the actual record of that entire situation. Macdonald was very much part of all of it from beginning to end and it's all there and was  before any condemnation from anyone and long before he wrote his book about it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Thanks for the advice. I have read Macdonald's account. As well as a number of other accounts. If you are interested my advice to you is to read American Golfer, Golf Illustrated (UK), Country Life, NY Times and The Times. It is a very interesting epoch....not as cut and dried as Macdonald reports.

I don't think either man would be mistaken for Mother Theresa...they both could be gigantic pricks...which is why I find their relationship and exchanges so interesting.

[TEPaul]

"Thanks for the advice. I have read Macdonald's account."

If you mean you read it after you said what you did earlier on this thread, then you're very welcome. But if you mean you read it before you wrote what you did on this thread then my suggestion to you would be to read it again and when you're done read it once again.

That stuff in Macdonald's book is the raw material and the correspondence from which this situation and the resolutions of it emanated. It's not just Macdonald's account of it about 20 years later.

This to me is something like some of the stuff you said and concluded from a magazine article on the creation of Pine Valley in support of what you want to think of the course as being designed by Colt. You produced a good article by Simon Carr, Crump's great friend where and when he cited Colt as having a very significant roll. What you neglected to consider or apparently understand is that article was written in 1914 and Crump continued to work on that course daily for the next four years. When someone told you that you apparently concluded he must have been watching the grass grow and that the course must have been finished.

I know you think I'm being rude, although I don't mean to be and I hope I'm not but I think you have a great facility and diligence in finding research material but you really do need this website to help you analyze it correctly.

Alternatively, with Macdonald and the whole Schnectedy thing, if you really have read the parts of his book carefully that deal with it and you understand it why don't you at least tell me specifically what you find in what he wrote about it that you have an issue with?    

[TEPaul]

"I don't think either man would be mistaken for Mother Theresa...they both could be gigantic pricks...which is why I find their relationship and exchanges so interesting."

So what if they both were total pricks or even if they were both total saints (which of course they weren't)? That's interesting to know, I guess, but no matter what they were, the facts are the facts and that's what we should be after here---not which of them could be the bigger prick!

If you think what Travis wrote is true about how that Schnectedy issue came up and was resolved (neither of which he really had to do) by the R&A and USGA simply because he may have been less of a prick than C.B Macdonald, I'd tell you that's probably not the best way to look at this issue.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Unfortunately these exchanges always degenerated into you telling me that I don't have the capacity or ability to analyze these events correctly. To be honest with you those claims are really meaningless. What would be more meaningful is solid thorough information presented in a logical concise manner that everyone could absorb.

When you constantly revert to anaylzing the analyst, I must conclude you don't have a lot of information at your disposal....which is often the reason for our disconnect.

I have a great deal of confidence in not only my ability to analyze these events, but a great deal of confidence in my ability to gather the material to analyze, and great deal of confidence in my overall knowledge base of who is who, who did what and what was generally going on at the time....which is IMO more than half the battle.

I prefer to make my case with solid information, as opposed to claiming the person with the opposing view doesn't have all the oars in the water....unless that person is John K.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

If you don't want me to say those things to you occasionally then start by explaining what you're implying here about Macdonald, Travis, the two organizations and the entire Schnectedy putter situation. And show me what exactly you're using to support what your point is.

I've given you my point on this in the posts above and I'm using for my source Macdonald's book and Labbance's book on Travis. The Macdonald book includes material a lot more valuable, in my opinion, than some later magazine or newspaper accounts which may not have had the material in Macdonald's book when they were written. In my opinion, what's in Macdonald's book is not just his opinion, it IS the actual RECORD on all this--he actually took the time to supply probably the entire record. My point is it looks to me like that is the facts in this situation. If you think otherwise at least tell me why.

But at the very least, answer my question and tell me what it is specifically that you take issue with in Macdonald's book that deals with all this.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Unfortunately these exchanges always degenerated into you telling me that I don't have the capacity or ability to analyze these events correctly."

Not always--only when I think you come up with some of these assumptions and conclusions and then fail to support them.

"To be honest with you those claims are really meaningless. What would be more meaningful is solid thorough information presented in a logical concise manner that everyone could absorb."

You know you're practically impossible to deal with in any manner or form and I'm definitely not the only one on here who feels that way. What in the world do you think my post #119 is all about? I am supporting what I'm saying in a logical manner---you just don't seem to want to see it.

I'm not going to retype about 20-30 pages of Macdonald's book nor Labbance's but it's all right in there---all of it---to suport what I'm saying here, all of which I outlined in post #119. I'd encourage anyone who has those books, and whose interested in this subject and discussion to carefully read those parts of them that deal with this issue. And I'd encourage you to do the same, Tom. Or at the very least tell me what in those books and that record you're taking issue with here!

Before you do anything else in this discussion at least do that--tell me what you're taking issue with! Telling me what you're real point here would help too.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()