[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, and it is even 'more' possible that Old Tom had dinner at home that night!   

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

Not saying who he had dinner with, just thought I would post Melvyn's fact.  That said, with the big tourney in town, I doubt the most famous man in golf was NOT short on dinner invitations that week......although this appears to be at the end of the long week, and maybe Old Tom was just too tired for one more dinner, who knows.

Probably one of those deals that as the years wore on, more and more folks who were there at the tourney amended the story a bit, kind of like the number who actually saw some famous game grows well above stadium capacity over the years.

[RJ_Daley]

Yes Jeff, totally agree.  Did you know over 500K people were there in the freezing stadium and witnessed Green Bay beat Dallas in "the Ice Bowl"?   

[David Ober]

This whole thing needs to be turned into a movie. Wow, what a read. Love this stuff.

[DMoriarty]

In any case, arguments like "if he is caught lying about the letterhead, then that proves the entire story is false" do not hold up to scientific standards of stringency. There may well be a few authentic pieces to the collection and a bunch of add-ons that aren't. The only sensible way of researching this mess is to look at each item seperately, but we do not even have a list of items.

Urlich,  I'm not sure you whether or not you meant to suggest you were quoting me there, but I don't think I've written that. I don't mind you quoting me, but if you do I'd prefer you do it accurately, so as we are all on the same page.  Thanks.

I am also not sure to what "scientific standards of stringency" you refer, but I don't agree that "the only sensible way of researching this mess is to look at each item separately."  I'd suggest the opposite is true.  One has to look at this material in the context in which it was presented, and the context in which it was allegedly created.  If one part of the story doesn't check out, this necessarily impacts other parts of the story.  If one item is fake then this in and of itself raises serious questions about the other items from the same source.  If, in your words, these guys are "caught lying" about one aspect, it makes it very difficult to believe them regarding other related aspects.  And given that they are insisting we take their word for the everything, that makes for a pretty weak presentation.

For example, they seem to have made up a story about a dinner at the Score's Hotel, a painting marked "Scores Hotel," a thank you letter written on Score's Hotel letterhead.  If the Score's Hotel didn't even exist (it didn't) then they just can't try to move the whole thing to another Hotel and hope no one notices. And they can't convincingly claim that the Score's Hotel must have been a colloquialism, because they have already claimed they have Score's Hotel letterhead.  And they can't convincingly just drop this inconvenient claim from their story, and hope no one notices.  The story is intertwined and the parts related.  If there was no Scores Hotel then their claims about these events become unbelievable. And the dominoes fall from there.

To publish artificially created excerpts of an inventory, as was done here, is a teaser or, if you will, advertising to create interest in a forthcoming sale. Why people here go out of their way to punch holes into a piece of advertising is beyond me. It's not very valuable work on both sides.

Artificially created excerpts of an inventory?  Advertising?  I have no idea to what you refer?  What is the "teaser" here?  The false information that they have tried to pass off as true?  Can you clarify?  In some industries it is a unlawful to post false information in "teaser advertisements, and for good reason.
________________________________________________

Probably one of those deals that as the years wore on, more and more folks who were there at the tourney amended the story a bit, kind of like the number who actually saw some famous game grows well above stadium capacity over the years.

Are you suggesting that Ian's grandfather might have been at the tournament or claimed to be there, and over the years the story just got exaggerated?  If so, interesting theory, but there are a couple of potential problems.
   - First, the information was supposed to have been written in a diary, so it ought to have been recorded the day he was there, or not.  
   - Second, the May 11 diary discusses events of the day before, which was the final day of that Amateur Championship, but it does not even mention the Championship!  Same goes for the summary of topics discussed at dinner at the Scores Hotel.  No mention of the Championship.  And MacKenzie was supposedly there not for the Championship meeting, but to look at some courses.

It is almost as if whoever authored the diary was unaware that the Amateur Championship was still going on the day David Scott-Taylor allegedly arrived in St. Andrews.  Their only concern was the supposed big "competition" the day after the actual Competition was over.

[John Kavanaugh]

What I don't understand is why good people like Phillip Young and Ran are shit upon by Moriarty while everyone stands
 by. Phil Young is one of the great people in golf, Ran has given me me a forum so his choice in friends will always be in question, but really, he who does not speak up lets the the long proven hate and ignorance of Moriarty become truth by unchallenged repetition.  Shame, shame on you, for God knows where those who do not speak defend the waggling tongues of ignorance.

[Jim Nugent]

John, why don't you point up the ignorance in David's posts in this thread... and show why he is wrong?  Maybe I'm mistaken, but seems like all I've seen from you is name-calling, without addressing the issues at hand. 

btw, David is not alone in his position.  Seems like almost everyone who is investigating this on this thread keeps coming up with anomalies, that support the questions David raised. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

While David Moriarty might be the most vocal sceptic, and certainly the one who seems to have the most time on his hands, he is most certainly not alone.

This is not a personal vendetta against anyone; most of us had never heard of Phil Young or Ian Scott-Taylor before this story broke. It stems from outrage felt by many at the clear attempt to pass bogus documents into mainstream acceptance and thus distort the general understanding of history.

John, the problem with your condemnation of David Moriarty is that he has quite clearly been proven right. Phil and Ian's entire story lies in tatters.

You talk about 'haters'.  Pot, Kettle, Black.

[John Kavanaugh]

While David Moriarty might be the most vocal sceptic, and certainly the one who seems to have the most time on his hands, he is most certainly not alone.

This is not a personal vendetta against anyone; most of us had never heard of Phil Young or Ian Scott-Taylor before this story broke. It stems from outrage felt by many at the clear attempt to pass bogus documents into mainstream acceptance and thus distort the general understanding of history.

John, the problem with your condemnation of David Moriarty is that he has quite clearly been proven right. Phil and Ian's entire story lies in tatters.

You talk about 'haters'.  Pot, Kettle, Black.

Phil Young is one of the most respected golf historians on the planet with many publishing credits.  To say that most of us have never heard of him is once again rank speculation that falls nicely in this thread.

How has Moriarty been proven right?  I read every one of his posts only to find it edited some time later.  I or anyone else can not be expected to review his constantly changing views.  If you want proof that he is not editing just for grammar or spelling go read an edited post.

Hater is simply a modern term of endearment for internet trolls who shout out on the internet until everyone else goes away, it is far from calling someone a liar, forger or thief.

I am not a member of Max's or Facebook so I can not speak to what has been revealed there but was very disappointed that it took an outside party to come on here and present evidence from Melvyn.  This discussion has been a one sided witch hunt.  It has proven nothing.

I am going to stick with Phil Young because I trust him as have various publishing companies.  Sorry but that still means more than a laptop and an internet connection.  I am 100% sure that when and if Phil believes these documents to be bogus he will publish that opinion.  You guys that want to put your eggs in Moriarty's basket would be well served by researching your researcher.  I tapped out on believing a word he says long ago.

[Tony_Muldoon]

John, why don't you point up the ignorance in David's posts in this thread... and show why he is wrong?  Maybe I'm mistaken, but seems like all I've seen from you is name-calling, without addressing the issues at hand. 

btw, David is not alone in his position.  Seems like almost everyone who is investigating this on this thread keeps coming up with anomalies, that support the questions David raised. 

http://www.ianscott-taylor.com/about.html

Ian Scott Taylor
“He studied at West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, City and Guilds London Institute and the University of Wiltshire, where he received his Ph.D in Engineering Design.
At the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments, Scott-Taylor worked on some of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the UK. He became an expert on historic landscapes and site recognition and remains one of the only golf course architects in the British Isles to work on heritage and ecological issues for the British Government.”

Sifting through this.
Starting with West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swansea_Metropolitan_University 

“In 1976 the three institutions came together to form the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education. In 1992 the institution was renamed Swansea Institute of Higher Education and became an independent Higher Education Corporation away from local authority control. In 2008 and following a successful two-year inspection, the Privy Council gave permission for the institution to be renamed Swansea Metropolitan University.”

I.e. this was what used to be called a Technical College that existed between 1976 and 1992.  The qualifications would not normally have been recognised today as providing a University degree level.

From there he studied at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_and_Guilds_of_London_Institute   
This is possible and this would be a technical qualification rather than a university degree.

A University Degree is the normal starting qualification for studying for a doctorate which is awarded for post graduate study

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

It would also allow him to call himself a Dr.

However I can find no record of the University of Wiltshire.

Again from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindon 

“As yet there are no universities within Wiltshire, except that Bath Spa University has a centre at Corsham Court in Corsham, and Oxford Brookes University maintains a minor campus in Swindon (almost 50 km from Oxford). Outline plans for a projected University of Swindon or University of Wiltshire were announced by the Borough of Swindon in November 2008, but the scheme remains uncommitted. Swindon is the UK's largest centre of population without its own university. The closest university to Wiltshire's county town of Trowbridge is the University of Bath. Wiltshire is therefore one of the few remaining English counties without a university or university college”

After qualification he claims to have worked for a body that I can’t find a record of either.

There are Commissions of “Historical” Monuments, for Scotland and Wales but not for the UK as a whole.  (Note the spelling mistake).

http://www.rcahmw.gov.uk/
http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/ 

[Mark Pearce]

http://www.ianscott-taylor.com/about.html

Ian Scott Taylor
At the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments, Scott-Taylor worked on some of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the UK. He became an expert on historic landscapes and site recognition and remains one of the only golf course architects in the British Isles to work on heritage and ecological issues for the British Government.”
http://www.rcahmw.gov.uk/
http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/ 

Can Neil or Phil, who have seen the authentication report confirm that it was not produced by the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments (whether of Wales or Scotland)?

[Jonathan Mallard]

John, why don't you point up the ignorance in David's posts in this thread... and show why he is wrong?  Maybe I'm mistaken, but seems like all I've seen from you is name-calling, without addressing the issues at hand. 

btw, David is not alone in his position.  Seems like almost everyone who is investigating this on this thread keeps coming up with anomalies, that support the questions David raised. 

http://www.ianscott-taylor.com/about.html

Ian Scott Taylor
“He studied at West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, City and Guilds London Institute and the University of Wiltshire, where he received his Ph.D in Engineering Design.
At the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments, Scott-Taylor worked on some of the most environmentally sensitive sites in the UK. He became an expert on historic landscapes and site recognition and remains one of the only golf course architects in the British Isles to work on heritage and ecological issues for the British Government.”

Not much to add except that I find the title of the degree odd.

I've never done a formal introduction thread on here, maybe I finally will after 250+ posts over 2 years.

Anyway, I'm an engineer. I'm a Civil Engineer. My specialty is structures. Specifically Bridges.

Engineering degrees are usually given by the field of study. The topics are very different.

Mechanical
Biomedical
Chemical
Electrical [I could never grasp playing with things I couldn't see.]
Industrial (may include Operations Research)
Materials
Computer (some programs include computer science as a separate degree)
Ocean
Aerospace - Lots of non-linear multi-variable differential equations in these two!
Civil (Yes, there are a few schools that have Structural and even Architectural Engineering programs)
Environmental [Sometimes Civil and Environmental are one Department]
Computer
Mining
Nuclear

And probably a few others.

Anyway... my point...

I'll be more than happy to apologize and retract this post if given a fuller understanding of the circumstances, but engineering degrees are usually given in a specific discipline. E.G. PhD. in Civil Engineering. Maybe there's a reason for that, and maybe they do things a little differently over there, but I'm used to seeing engineering degrees cover specific specialties. "Engineering Design" in my mind is so overly broad that I would question it's origin, (as has already been done) and it's meaning.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tony,

Perhaps Ian's site was referring to Wiltshire College.  Engineering Design sounds more like a college course than a University engineering degree.

I can find reference to Ian being staff of the the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales from 1984 - 1988 in a book entitled "An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan: Volume III ..., Volume 1". 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Tony,

Perhaps Ian's site was referring to Wiltshire College.  Engineering Design sounds more like a college course than a University engineering degree.

True, but Wiltshire College doesn't sound like the kind of place that gives out PhD's, which Ian claims he was awarded there.

[Lou_Duran]

So, is the purpose of this thread really to "authenticate" the sketches and diaries?

[Niall C]

yes

[DMoriarty]

So, is the purpose of this thread really to "authenticate" the sketches and diaries?

Lou,  I think Phil and Ian's purposes behind this thread and the related IMO were twofold:
1.  They wanted to (again) try and convince readers that the diaries and sketches are authentic.
2)  According to Phil, he also wanted to "add more information in answers to some of the questions that I am sure will come my way" and to provide "specific answers" to our questions about the authenticity of the documents.

I think they fell short with regard to both. Their presentation proved unconvincing because (among many other reasons) they did not bring forward any independently verifiable information about the material or even about the authentication process.  And Phil and Ian would not or could not answer even the most basic questions about their story, even though the requested information should have been readily available if they have what they say they have.  

In short, their argument and presentation boiled down to their insistence that we take their word for everything, and given what has been discovered about their story, many here aren't willing to take their word for it.

So the thread has evolved into a discussion of the many problems and questions with their story and their claims.  To the eyes of many who have looked into it, nothing about their story checks out, and people have been discussing some of the information that doesn't check out.

It would be great if they, you, or anyone else would try to address this growing list of problems.  But with facts, not with righteous indignation.  

It would also be nice if Phil, Ian, or anyone would at least address the questions Phil told us they would address.  

It would also be nice if someone could come up with anything about their story that could be independently verified.  

But so far there is nothing.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Perhaps Ian's site was referring to Wiltshire College.  Engineering Design sounds more like a college course than a University engineering degree.

His LinkedIn profile also says University of Wiltshire.

Wiltshire College appears to have been formed in 2002 - did he get his degree after that date?  He appears to have moved to Maryland in 1998.

Wiltshire College is a tertiary college of education founded in 2002 by the merger of Chippenham Technical College, Lackham College and Trowbridge College.[1] Consolidation was completed with the merger of Salisbury College, which commenced in January 2008.

[Lou_Duran]

So, is the purpose of this thread really to "authenticate" the sketches and diaries?

Lou,  I think Phil and Ian's purposes behind this thread and the related IMO were twofold:
1.  They wanted to (again) try and convince readers that the diaries and sketches are authentic.
2)  According to Phil, he also wanted to "add more information in answers to some of the questions that I am sure will come my way" and to provide "specific answers" to our questions about the authenticity of the documents.
.....

It would be great if they, you, or anyone else would try to address this growing list of problems.  But with facts, not with righteous indignation.  

No righteous indignation in my part that I know of.  It seems to me that attempts to link the Dr. to a homicide, cold calling a family member, and now picking apart a resume have a little more to do with other things than establishing the authenticity of the documents.  Be it far for me to divine what is driving some folks (demonstrating research prowess, generalizing a fault or error on a few matters to all the others, or just being downright argumentative??), but it seems to me that it has been shown with some clarity that something is in the woodpile and any prudent consumer of these products would be wise to heed's Dick Daley's advice (caveat emptor).

As to the resume, having reviewed hundreds in my life, errors, exaggeration, even fiction are the rule, not the exception.  I once worked with a six-figure per assignment consultant who listed an MBA from Harvard among his many credentials.  Upon probing a bit over several social settings, I learned he had received a certificate from one of the business school's many "executive" programs, his lasting but a few weekends.  Certainly if someone can get a pass on a lie about being of Indian ancestry to gain an advantage in hiring at a top law school and still be elected to the U.S. Senate, we might be able to overlook some discrepancies in an industry resume where prior work experience and other objective evaluation of the projects the architect has been involved with is going to primarily drive the selection process.

I believe that Phil and others will eventually put together the evidence and set the record straight even if they have to eat some crow.  Whether that will be sufficient to some, I have my doubts.  Again, referring to Dick's earlier comments, other than the fun of the food fight, even if the materials aren't real, what is being gained by the continued scavenger hunt?  Has gca been harmed?  Was MacKenzie and Tillie affected?  Their courses?  Our opinions of their work?  Those interested in history are always well-advised to read widely.  As you and I see the world so very differently and would write about similar things from very divergent perspectives, so do "historians".  Skepticism is not only good, it is necessary.  But how many times can one kill a horse?  And why get so personal? 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Dear Lou, please explain to me what other things I had in mind when I raised the matter of his self advertised resume?

[DMoriarty]

Lou,  

You are lumping an awful lot together, and unfairly so.  
1.  Despite the veiled accusations and innuendo by Ian, Kavanaugh, and others, I can't answer for who might have called Ian's relative.
2.  While I didn't initially bring forward the information on Dr. Scott-Taylor's trial in Australia, the information is no doubt relevant here for many reasons, not the least of which is that so far the Australian incident is one of the only independently verifiable events for a long portion of Dr. Scott-Taylor's life. According to Ian and Phil this was most definitely not Ian's grandfather, so if Ian's grandfather was the Dr. David Scott-Taylor tried (and acquitted) in Australia, then this is strong evidence that their story is false. Phil and Ian also claim to have definitive proof that this is not Ian's grandfather, but of course they haven't brought it forward.
3.  As for poking holes in the resume, that is not my doing either, but surely you can understand why some might think it important if David Scott-Taylor might be prone to embellishment.

I am not as sure as you that "Phil and others will eventually put together the evidence and set the record straight even if they have to eat some crow."  Phil and Ian have taken three shots at explaining themselves, and each time they depart they leave even more questions and problems.  

As for your thoughts about how this issue doesn't merit the treatment it is receiving, and your aspersions of my motivations and the motivations of others, I disagree, but it is not worth getting into it.  I know why some of us think this is worth pursuing, and your approval or agreement on this issue matters very little to me.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,  

You are lumping an awful lot together, and unfairly so.  

.....

As for your thoughts about how this issue doesn't merit the treatment it is receiving, and your aspersions of my motivations and the motivations of others, I disagree, but it is not worth getting into it.  I know why some of us think this is worth pursuing, and your approval or agreement on this issue matters very little to me.

David,

When you become the arbiter of what is fair, it will be time for me to check out.

I stated that I don't know what is driving folks to pile on.  I gave three potential reasons, but I am sure there are others and certainly did not "asperse" or ascribe one to you.  You were not being singled out in the adverse items I found mostly irrelevant, in fact, my recollection is that you were not an originator of any one of them.  You said you did not make the call and I don't doubt your sincerity.  I don't identify with John's comments, though I do share some of his frustration with how Phil has been treated.

As to my approval or agreement not mattering to you, I can live with that.  I understand that some things are more meaningful to some than others and censorship is certainly not my intent.  Much of this thread just seems to be tiring, repetitive, and somewhat vindictive.  I do need to be better disciplined and more selective on what I choose to get involved with.

Tony,

You did not cross my mind when I commented on the resume.  Were you the originator of this line of inquiry?  Maybe you can take all the guessing out of it and tell us about the implications.  Is it that if Ian is found to have "augmented" his credentials he is likely to have forged  the documents?  Would the marketing materials for your company survive the scrutiny of a line-by-line review?  Would one error- say perhaps an exaggerated attempt at putting your best foot forward- bring into question the integrity of your firm?  If the answer is yes, then the vast majority of us would be up the creek.  Anyways, sorry if you took offense.  None was intended.

Of course it would be best if Ian would set the record straight.   It is my nature not to let falsehoods in the record go unchallenged.  If it was me I'd do that.  There are others, President Bush 2 among them, who won't dignify the nonsense with a response.  I think that this approach has some merit, but one has to be comfortable with the reputational risk.   

[DMoriarty]

Speaking of the Australia incident, the following article from the February 27, 1926 Singleton Argus was forwarded to me offline a week or so ago.  It provides a more detailed account of the tragic events in Australia. I've hesitated to post it because the inevitable reaction will be that I am somehow trying to denigrate Ian's family (see Lou's post a few above for example), but I've grown weary of those who seem to only be here to disparage my efforts and the efforts of others to try and figure out the truth.  

While the story is quite gritty, in my opinion it helps paint a heartbreaking portrait of a ship's doctor who tried unsuccessfully to save the life of a woman in trouble. It is an agonizing, compelling, real, and very human portrayal, much more so than the story about how the young Dr. Scott-Taylor was rushed to the bedside of the dying Queen.  As Tom MacWood sometimes pointed out, the truth is very often more interesting that fiction.

[Edited to fix image]

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tony,

You did not cross my mind when I commented on the resume.  Were you the originator of this line of inquiry?  Maybe you can take all the guessing out of it and tell us about the implications.  Is it that if Ian is found to have "augmented" his credentials he is likely to have forged  the documents?  Would the marketing materials for your company survive the scrutiny of a line-by-line review?  Would one error- say perhaps an exaggerated attempt at putting your best foot forward- bring into question the integrity of your firm?  If the answer is yes, then the vast majority of us would be up the creek.  Anyways, sorry if you took offense.  None was intended.

Of course it would be best if Ian would set the record straight.   It is my nature not to let falsehoods in the record go unchallenged.  If it was me I'd do that.  There are others, President Bush 2 among them, who won't dignify the nonsense with a response.  I think that this approach has some merit, but one has to be comfortable with the reputational risk.   

Lou, yes I brought that up.

If you care to read back through this thread you will read that I have asked others,
a  politely, to moderate their behaviour
b  to state simply where the facts don't fit and not to oversell what they bellieve that implies.

Clearly you and I have formed different opinions as to what the implications are that many, many facts presented have been proven to be incorrect ,including inventing a place of higher education and claiming a Doctorate from it. 

Neither you nor anyone else have chosen to make the counter argument that (m)any facts do actually support the authenticity of what we've been shown so far.

As well as implying that you think the points I've made have been insignificant and perhaps even a little naive, you have questioned my motives.    Let's just stick to the facts and let people make their own minds up.




BTW Feel free to critique the following and after reporting back allow people to decide it's relevance to my contributions to this discussion group.
www.enterpriseplants.com

[Lou_Duran]

Clearly you and I have formed different opinions as to what the implications are that many, many facts presented have been proven to be incorrect ,including inventing a place of higher education and claiming a Doctorate from it. 

Neither you nor anyone else have chosen to make the counter argument that (m)any facts do actually support the authenticity of what we've been shown so far.

As well as implying that you think the points I've made have been insignificant and perhaps even a little naive, you have questioned my motives.    Let's just stick to the facts and let people make their own minds up.

BTW Feel free to critique the following and after reporting back allow people to decide it's relevance to my contributions to this discussion group.
www.enterpriseplants.com

I guess I stepped on something.  Come on Tony.  I wasn't even aware that you introduced the resume into the discussion, so how have I questioned YOUR motives?  Insignificant?  Naïve?  You are taking liberties with what I wrote.  BTW, I am now interested in learning why you focused on the resume.  Is it the implication that once a liar always a liar?

What I am saying is that based on personal experience, what is typically reflected on a marketing brochure or a resume is an approximation, an indication of capabilities, a firm's or individual's attempt to put the best foot forward.  Just as I wouldn't hire someone based on what is contained in the resume, I wouldn't dismiss the individual either because of an error.  I've seen information which seemed seriously flawed, perhaps even fraudulent, which turned out to be a simple, non-factor (e.g. a candidate listing his last job title as Business Manager and Corporate Liaison when his personnel title was simply Sr. Financial Analyst- the hiring authority thought he was misrepresenting his record and questioned his integrity, when, in actuality, his former company's provided business card showed him to be "Business Manager" which was more descriptive of what he did than the personnel/compensation system record the ER department provided as his last job).

I would hope that Ian is smart enough not to list a fictitious degree on a public website, but I do not know him at all.  I do know of Phil, Neil, and Ran for some time and am more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and the time to set the record straight.

I haven't reached a conclusion.  There are enough concerns here that would make me a skeptical buyer if I was into purchasing such things.  I am not, and as DavidM correctly noted, my level of interest in these matters is relatively low.  I do care when seemingly good people appear to be subjected to a death by a thousand cuts.  Let Phil get his arms around these matters and get back to us.  If he learns that he's been had, he'll tell us.

Again, I didn't mean any disrespect, so please don't take it that way.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()