[MCirba]

More ridiculous hyperbole which tells more about Cirba and his methods than it does about Merion.  As has been discussed repeatedly, the Nov. 15, 1910 map is a land plan of the type which are generally created by developers to help them sell their land. Note that the land is divided well beyond the Merion's land and even some of the property owners are designated, as are a few lots which had apparently already been sold. In other words, the map was most likely created by the developer, not by Merion.   

David,

Merion is the one who sent out that Pugh and Hubbard Land Plan to their members on November 15, 1910, specifying that it shows the 117 acres they had just secured in green marked "Golf Course".   

Again, if it indicated that the Francis Exchange took place prior why the great amount of inaccuracy from what was a carefully calculated attempt to fit the last five holes as described by Francis?

Why not just include the map Francis tells us he was laboring over?   Why not include the routing Francis tells us his work completed?

Why include something that everyone  of them at that point had to know was grossly inaccurate if Francis had already done his work?

And if that routing and design work was done, why wait six months for CBM's approval?   Why work on numerous alternative plans prior and five new plans after their visit to NGLA?


Here again is what they sent to their members the very same day that plan was signed by Pugh&Hubbard - a copy of the plan of the land they were buying for their golf course;







And David...

No matter how ridiculous you think the facts are from what you through power of your own mind believe you can figure out based on your own total supposition and complete conjecture, please re-read the bottom of that map.

Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, I guess once you apply your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" theory of historic interpretation to your theory, then yes, anything goes.  You did it all through your essay, using your own logical interpretations in place of any written record, so yes, I guess you really didn't have very high standards for your theories.  I have to admit, when you told Mike that was your standard on this thread, it floored me.  Also, I am struck by how often your defense, even more so lately, comprises of saying we made stuff up, we use hyperbole, etc.

Of course, you can find inaccuracies in the record that might point both ways.  But to say there is nothing in the record, such as his letters to Piper, the applause of others, etc. you are being very selective your own self.

Here is my quick count of all the instances where your theory "makes stuff up" with no real evidence.  In a few cases, these were later proved wrong when more evidence came to light.

All regular case type is quotes pasted from the original essay.  The bold parts are what struck me as assumptions you ask us to take as fact, even if not in the written record.  The red are some of my supplemental thoughts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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….

In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best

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.

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.


MY NOTES – AREN’T “PROBABLE” AND “NEARLY” EVIDENCE OF AN ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATE ACREAGE, NOT A PRE-DETERMINED ACREAGE AS YOU NEED TO SUPPOSE TO MAKE YOUR THEORY WORK?

But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion secured the land, which was before Merion appointed Wilson and his Construction Committee.

The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company

PLEASE PROVIDE SOME PROOF

The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.

My NOTE- WE NOW KNOW THIS WAS IN JUNE 1911, SO YES, IT WOULD CONFIRM THE LAND SWAP AT THAT TIME


The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.

MY NOTE – ELSEWHERE, WE KNOW FRANCIS WAS ADDED TO A COMMITTEE NOT FORMED UNTIL JAN 1911, SO WHY WAS HE WORKING ON IT BEFORE THEN? PROOF?


Moreover, the timing and the synopsis of the site committee’s report both strongly suggest that requirement for the specific “nearly 120 acre” site came about largely as a result of Macdonald’s and Whigham’s inspection and subsequent letter.

MY NOTE – NOT SURE WHY, AND NOT SURE THIS IMPLIES DESIGN IS DONE, NO RECORD. ALSO, YOU SAY SPECIFIC, THEY SAY “NEARLY 120 ACRES”  YOU ADDED THIS, NOT THEM.

Macdonald and Whigham had given Wilson and his Committee “a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes,” thus implying that the Committee’s trip to NGLA occurred at the beginning of their endeavor.

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.

WE NOW KNOW THAT MEETING WAS IN MARCH, AFTER WILSON CAME ON BOARD, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY BASED ON THE PIPER LETTERS


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.

CMB RECOMMENDED THIS IN HIS JUNE 1910 LETTER. MAY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWUP TO GET ADDRESS, AND TO SET UP NGLA MEETING, BUT NO EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONTACT.

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.

AGREED, AND WITH NO OTHER RECORDED MEETINGS, THE MOST LIKLELY SCENARIO IS HE IMPARTED ALL KNOWLEDGE HE COULD IN A 2 DAY VISIT.

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. Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had 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, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.

YOU USED THE TERMS “MOST LIKELY” SEVERAL TIMES HERE….ASSUMPTIONS, NOT RECORDED FACTS.  ALSO, WE DO NOT KNOW OF ANY RECORDED FACTS THAT THE ROUTING HAD BEEN “KNOWN FOR MONTHS” THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART.

Basically, the essence of your theory is all "most likely" in your opinion.  It is really very weak historical argument. Of course, the fact that you have only really convinced a few that these big leaps of faith, contrary to much/most of the written record, and that most of us here, Merion, and the USGA seem to have disagreed, suggests as much.

Not saying flat out your theory isn't true, just that it isn't all that strong, all things considered.  Just saying, again and for the last and most detailed time, that you haven't convinced me.  And, I think you do need to provide more real records in many instances for your theory to stack up. 

But, if you haven't found much additional proof beyond your own logical conclusions, I doubt you will convince me, but others are free to disagree.  And, as a few posts back, I know you have subtly changed some of your thoughts as years have gone on.

Lastly, I always thought there was some middle ground here.  We all agree CBM was of great influence, and always have.  Sometimes, it seems you want us to agree with you 110% instead of just 95% or so.  Sometimes, despite saying you just want to know exactly what CBM did (which is unknowable to all of us) it really seems as if you are beating the drum for CBM to get more credit than Merion has always given them, while we simply feel what exists is pretty appropriate.  In the end, I never thought the difference of how far apart you and Mike (and Pat and I, etc.) might be was all that great, and yet, due to personalities, the argument continues.

Obviously, such a strong post against your theory is likely to anger you, and I understand, even if I am just asking for more proof from outside your own mind (and which you asked long ago for us to provide as your theory evolved.) For that, I am sorry. It is hard to discuss such difference of opinion without raising at least some anger and resentment.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,  I stopped reading after the first paragraph, when it became clear that once again you were digressing in your bizarre and nonsensical critiques of my essay and me personally. That didn't take long.

I guess I'll go back to trying to ignore you altogether. I can only hope that others are not mislead by the constant stream of misinformation you introduce here.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Sorry you feel that way, but felt that sort of non-response, rather than point out facts in your favor, was coming.  It is your usual mode when even small facts are pointed out that go against your theory.

And, to be fair, there was nothing at all in that close to a personal attack, so I don't appreciate you putting that out there.

Also, hard to say I am critiquing you when I simply cut and paste your posts, showing how your words even allow you were making assumptions.  Your words are damning your theory, not mine.  At last, IMHO.  I understand you may feel differently.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Why is it Mike gets trashed for any assumptions,
 
Because his assumptions are merely opinions to support his pre-determined conclusions.
 
Many make assumptions and based upon those assumptions, arrive at a conclusion AFTER piecing together the totality of those assumptions.
 
Mike has arrived at his conclusion/s long ago, and has typically and historically, fabricated and gerrymandered his assumptions to try to support his pre-determined conclusion.
 
You do understand the distinction............ yes ?
 
but you think you can come in here and assume there were phone conversations.
 
"Assume there were phone conversations" ?  ?  ?
You'd have to be a total idiot to exclude any use of the telephone as a form of communication when the two parties were far removed from each other in Phildelphia and New York
 
Along the lines of David's comments, your last post (in fact, most of your posts) are not productive in the discussion. They are counter productive, in fact.
 
Jeff, I rarely care what you think and the above is no exception.

And, yes, my take is that unless there is some (preferably multiple) mentions of something in the record, that we shouldn't make the assumptions that there was all sorts of contact.
 
The added weasel language, "all sorts" is strictly your disingenuous addition to dismiss a relevant factor.
 
It is more likely that there wasn't, beyond setting up the next meeting, which seems reasonable enough, whether done by phone, letter, etc.
 
So now you're admitting that there were phone calls, but, only for scheduling purposes.
Why would they limit themselves to only discussing scheduling ? ? ?
 
To adopt a position that the telephone was never used to communicate anything about Merion, pre-design and pre-construction seems contrary to what a prudent person would conclude, don't you think ?

I will agree that it seems as if it would actually be bad form to discuss either Ron Whitten or SHGC on this thread, despite its title!
 
I knew, that sooner or later, we'd agree on something.

[Patrick_Mucci]

No matter how ridiculous you think the facts are from what you through power of your own mind believe you can figure out based on your own total supposition and complete conjecture, please re-read the bottom of that map.

Mike,
 
Why don't you tell us what YOU think it means.
 
You may be surprised to learn that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[JESII]

Jim Sullivan,

Speaking of questions, does it bother your understanding that the "appropriate road" drawn on that map bear little relation to what was already determined by the Francis Swap if it happened prior to then?   Similarly, does it trouble you that no holes, not even stick diagrams appear on that map that you believe is the completed course?   I mean, they had just obviously gone through a good deal of trouble figuring all of this out to great detail, down to swapping acreage back and forth, and now they just slap up some piece of crap to send to their members?

Mike,


No need to hyperventilate...I don't think the epiphany that is now known as the Francis Land Swap meant the course was completed and ready for construction. I do think it meant they (Merion AND HDC) knew where their golf course was going to go. I don't think they had 18 specific hole concepts created and ready.


If HDC owned this land, and HGL ran HDC, what would stop him from blowing the top off the rock where today's 16th green is prior to November 15, 1910?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Why is it Mike gets trashed for any assumptions,
 
Because his assumptions are merely opinions to support his pre-determined conclusions.
 
Many make assumptions and based upon those assumptions, arrive at a conclusion AFTER piecing together the totality of those assumptions.
 
Mike has arrived at his conclusion/s long ago, and has typically and historically, fabricated and gerrymandered his assumptions to try to support his pre-determined conclusion.

And you haven't? Rich....
 
You do understand the distinction............ yes ?
 
but you think you can come in here and assume there were phone conversations.
 
"Assume there were phone conversations" ?  ?  ?
You'd have to be a total idiot to exclude any use of the telephone as a form of communication when the two parties were far removed from each other in Phildelphia and New York
 
Along the lines of David's comments, your last post (in fact, most of your posts) are not productive in the discussion. They are counter productive, in fact.
 
Jeff, I rarely care what you think and the above is no exception.

A non answer when you really have no answer

And, yes, my take is that unless there is some (preferably multiple) mentions of something in the record, that we shouldn't make the assumptions that there was all sorts of contact.
 
The added weasel language, "all sorts" is strictly your disingenuous addition to dismiss a relevant factor.

I added that phrase, remembering that you once stated they were "burning up the phone lines to NY"  Nothing disingenuous, just remember your past.....

It is more likely that there wasn't, beyond setting up the next meeting, which seems reasonable enough, whether done by phone, letter, etc.
 
So now you're admitting that there were phone calls, but, only for scheduling purposes.
Why would they limit themselves to only discussing scheduling ? ? ?

I do think its reasonable to say polite gentleman wouldn't show up at NGLA unannounced, so its not that big an assumption that they did communicate, whether letter or phone.  Please note you subtly changed my wording to suit your disingenuous purposes, as is typical.

Assuming they would be in contact more often truly is an assumption, especially given the written record doesn't support it.  Also, Merion members recall that they really did most of the work themselves, only meeting with CBM on those three noted occasions.  While they might not have recorded every detail, they detailed the main meetings in great detail. If we assume anything, we should assume they were smart enough to write reports that reflect what they did, no?
 


To adopt a position that the telephone was never used to communicate anything about Merion, pre-design and pre-construction seems contrary to what a prudent person would conclude, don't you think ?

Not at all. See above.  You know what they say....ASS U ME.  What is truly funny about you and David is that you go on offense to play defense. In this case, by accusing others of having a predetermined conclusion, when that is exactly what you have.  BTW, you may not remember, but when David's essay first came out, I read it in full, initially supported it, and then gradually changed my mind as other evidence came out.  So, no, I don't have pre-determined conclusion.  I have stayed active in these gawd awful discussions for 8 years now, and made my opinion based on all that has been presented here.  And, as noted in the post above, I don't think I am all that far from David, or Mike, but somewhere in the middle, as in gray, not black and white of Merion, no MacDonald!.......Merion, no MacDonald!

I will agree that it seems as if it would actually be bad form to discuss either Ron Whitten or SHGC on this thread, despite its title!
 
I knew, that sooner or later, we'd agree on something.

I hope you are near a lightning shelter, as I am!

[Jeff_Brauer]

No matter how ridiculous you think the facts are from what you through power of your own mind believe you can figure out based on your own total supposition and complete conjecture, please re-read the bottom of that map.

Mike,
 
Why don't you tell us what YOU think it means.
 
You may be surprised to learn that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Pat,

Are you referring to "Map of Golf Course prepared for Merion Cricket Club"?  Actually, I think that would shoot down David's theory that it was prepared for the developer. At least, in 37 years, when my plans say they are prepared for XX, they are prepared for XX and XX is the one who pays for it.  That may not always happen, but it usually does.

Or, are you referring to something else?

I will also say that I agree with David, that there was likely no land survey at this time, and the road was drawn probably using a planimeter to get the acreage to 117.  If they drew the line in light pencil, measured and found it off, they could adjust before inking the final, so I believe that road probably shows very close to 117 acres, and was what MCC was working their initial routing off of.

I have also pointed out in the past, that the northern part, across College Ave., which was already developed, meant that Golf House Road would have to line up with the intersection of Turnbridge and College.  Intersections are safest if lined up, or well separated, and I believe that planning principle was known by that time.  Not sure of the topo, but such roads usually are also best near a rise or valley, but not mid slope, which might have affected the alignment.

Basically, Francis just realized that the road planner gave them an unusable sliver up there near Haverford College, and corrected it, being an engineer himself.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Against my better judgment, I skimmed your post.  It made be smile that you think you are trashing my essay by trying to cherry pick out quotes, because despite your attempts to make me look bad, almost everything you've quoted has been born out by the facts.

Your primary criticism of my essay seems to be that you don't like that I carefully distinguish between what is theory and what is fact.  I consider this a compliment, not a criticism.  That you think differently speaks volumes about your lack of understanding as to how these things work.

Unlike you and Mike, I know the difference between facts and theory. I don't pretend to have facts when I don't.  I am capable of drawing logical conclusions based on sometimes limited facts, but I always try to leave open the possibility that more facts will surface and I will re-address by hypotheses.  This is the way historical analysis is supposed to work.

Considering that I was dealing with a limited record when I wrote the essay, I am pretty proud of what I was able to figure out, especially when you consider that almost everything in the had never been brought forward before, and almost all of the facts which have come out since support my hypotheses.  Thanks for reminding me that I am pretty good at this stuff.  Next time you read my essay (even its its unfortunately garbled state) you should really try to learn something about proper methodology.  Lord knows you could use it. 

Too bad the essay seems to be permanently garbled almost beyond recognition. It was damn good work, if I say so myself.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

Yes, that map showing 117 acres was prepared for the Merion Cricket Club by Pugh and Hubbard and they mailed it out to their members the day it was completed. 

Seven months later those same Civil Engineers drafted the metes and bounds of the 120.01 acres Merion purchased from HDC.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I understand your explanation, but with respect still don't agree.  I believe in other cases you have stated and most generally agree that it is hard to report an event as fact without some corroborating evidence.  Your theory may be 100% correct, although I doubt we can ever know, but IMHO, will be subject to criticism because there are so many instances where you draw conclusions without two or more real pieces of record.  Say what you want about my lack of perspective on the process, but I think that is pretty standard stuff as these things go, not "absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence."

I don't think I cherry picked your essay. I was struck by the number of times you concluded something "must have" happened, sometimes completely out of left field, as it were, without really even providing the logic tree behind your thought process.  I merely cut and pasted those examples, but do agree there are other examples in there where you are more thorough.

BTW, I had forgotten that your essay did suffer some in a transition to the new site a few years back.  I didn't take that into account. And, I generally do agree with your idea of new facts changing positions........  Another reason (along with your possibly evolving position), to consider a rewrite......reasons not to re-write?  Well, probably Mike and I would still pick at it, so I understand if you don't.

Cheers.

[MCirba]

And for the record, if anyone has trashed me beyond insulting invective and profanity laden posts with anything even remotely factual I must have missed it. 

The rest I just slough off as the inability or unwillingness of others to have a discussion based on facts but I doubt there are many who actually care who don't see through this transparent tactic.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Yes, that map showing 117 acres was prepared for the Merion Cricket Club by Pugh and Hubbard and they mailed it out to their members the day it was completed. 

Seven months later those same Civil Engineers drafted the metes and bounds of the 120.01 acres Merion purchased from HDC.

Mike,

Thanks for sharing.  I figured my "logical conclusion" based on my experience was right, but having the written record confirm it is a much stronger case.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

And for the record, if anyone has trashed me beyond insulting invective and profanity laden posts with anything even remotely factual I must have missed it. 

The rest I just slough off as the inability or unwillingness of others to have a discussion based on facts but I doubt there are many who actually care who don't see through this transparent tactic.

Mike,

Just to be clear, are you referring to public or private trashing?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

Yes, that map showing 117 acres was prepared for the Merion Cricket Club by Pugh and Hubbard and they mailed it out to their members the day it was completed. 

Seven months later those same Civil Engineers drafted the metes and bounds of the 120.01 acres Merion purchased from HDC.

Mike are you again just making things up, or do you have a source for your claims?   

Because I don't think you have any idea who commissioned that plan, although the contents of the plan itself strongly suggest it was the developer.   

The fact (if it is one) that the same engineers were used to draft the metes and bounds in July 1911 tells us nothing because the same parties were involved.  Surely you realize at least this, don't you?


ADDED: The seller is generally responsible for providing the legal description of the property, not the buyer.

[MCirba]

David,

Didn't Bryan indicate that Pugh and Hubbard created the metes and bounds if the sales agreement?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Other possibilities, they split the cost, since it benefited both, or Lloyd paid for it privately, since technically he was or was going to be the land Owner.


I am not sure this affects the timeline of Merion, though.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Didn't Bryan indicate that Pugh and Hubbard created the metes and bounds if the sales agreement?

I don't remember.  If so, this would suggest that they were in the employ of Haverford Development Company, which was the seller.   As I said, my understanding is that it is the seller who is usually responsible for describing the property to be sold.

Now, as for your claim that it was Merion who hired Pugh and Hubbard to create the Nov. map, did you just make that up, or do you have some fact backing this up?

[DMoriarty]

I am not sure this affects the timeline of Merion, though.

It has nothing to do with the timeline. 

Mike had thrown out yet another false condition: There is no plan on stick routing on the map, therefore planning hadn't yet occurred. I pointed out that not only was this nonsensical, but also Merion probably didn't even create the map.

That is what you and Mike do.  You create false conditions. Another example is where you suggest that, because Merion didn't hire Raynor, CBM didn't help plan the course.  That is a false condition.  You guys do it again and again because the actual facts don't support your position.

[MCirba]

The map was prepared by P+H for  the Merion Cricket Club to show the 117 acres Merion had secured for their new Golf Course to its members and was sent out to them the day it came off the press.

I think it very accurately reflects the state of things as of that date.

Who cares if Merion or HDC paid?      How is that material to the content? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,


Assuming a blank plan of just the initially proposed property line means that is all they knew at the time is just as reasonable as an assumption that they had finalized a plan (which later turned out to be different)


In my case, I have drawn literally thousands of plans. I cannot think of one that had withheld known information at the time of preparation, just as I have never done one for a client and put someone else's name on it.  If Merion was voting on buying that land, I would presume standard practice then (as now) is to pay the surveyor, so they are working for YOU, just to be sure its accurate.  It could happen another way, but usually only when a client is so short of money, they are willing to accept compromises to save a dime. I don't envision that to be the case, or that to be those type of people.


So, I disagree that it is surely a false condition. In fact, I think it fairly likely, based on all I know, that it represents what they were voting on - the purchase of a property that they deemed suitable for their needs, but realizing they may need some flexibility (thanks to the experience of CBM)

[Jeff_Brauer]

The map was prepared by P+H for  the Merion Cricket Club to show the 117 acres Merion had secured for their new Golf Course to its members and was sent out to them the day it came off the press.

Who cares if Merion or HDC paid?      How is that material to the content? 

Mike,

Our posts cross, and I agree. I guess I believe that the real false condition here is David's premise that CBM had routed the golf course prior to this.  Its not this plan alone that makes that seem a false premise, its the combo of Merion drawing many plans in the spring of next year, visiting NGLA, and the preparing five more that combine with this blank property line map that make me think the course wasn't routed by then.  In 7 years, I don't believe David has really shown that the routing was done by then.    At least, see my post again.  There are many references to his conclusion there, but it escapes me if he has connected the dots from A-B-C-Preliminary Routing in Nov. 1910. 

I welcome the opportunity for him to show me where he does so.....but I don't see the balance of the evidence saying that, including this blank map.  Or,just  more explanation on why this is so "nonsensical." If you use such a strong term, it seems you could easily back it up with some simple and powerful explanation, no?

[MCirba]

It's preposterous to assume that a course routing wouldn't have been included on a scale property map if one existed at that time, mailed to the membership the same day it was produced.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


IMHO, it would have to be an extraordinary case of the routing being done just a bit too late for P&H to send it to the print shop.  Golfers would be interested in the golf course, if it was known.  When I put up a routing plan at a meeting, they flock to it, and are mesmerized. 


If it was a vote on the final golf course plan and configuration, wouldn't the meeting notes say that?  They surely did in April 1911, when the committee told the board how they arrived at the routing, showed a plan, etc.  Why would the minutes not record such a momentous event? Or, get it wrong?

Not to mention, I can't believe any club would put a property purchase up for a vote using a map they knew was wrong.  It seems as if that would potentially be seen as criminal fraud.  Perhaps the most perplexing thing about David's position, is as a trained lawyer, I doubt he would feel comfortable if his clients were doing this.  (depending of course, on what kind of clients he had....as a defense lawyer, he may have had to make himself comfortable with it, but then, I don't know anything about his practice, just joking a bit)

I will say that I usually understand where David comes from.  The minutes also say "experts are at work" suggesting some overlap, and I get that. That is why, despite 37 years of board votes, etc., I disagree, but wouldn't call his interpretation totally nonsensical.  But, I don't agree, either! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()