A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
Tom ... I'd like nothing better to be "outta business" as far as debunking Barton and the other revisionists goes. I'm really hoping that happens at some point so that I can turn my attention to writing about other historical stuff I want to write about that has nothing to do with religion. First on the list is a biography I'd like to write of a particular "forgotten" founding father who I find extremely interesting who nobody's ever written a biography of. I actually have ideas for several books that have nothing to do with the religious crap. And if I my goal was to make money at this "business," these other book ideas I have would certainly be more mainstream and commercially advantageous to me, as they would appeal to a much wider, more general audience than what I write now. I'd much rather be writing these other books than debunking Barton's lies, but as long as Barton is out there lying, I'll be writing about him.
Since you yourself are self-published, this little "scandal" doesn't have much gas, sorry. But if hounding this nonentity is to be your life's work instead of something more lasting and worthwhile, so be it. But one day, perhaps soon, David Barton will be gone, and your own work as a handful of straw.
How on earth is me being self-published in any way relevant to David Barton lying about who his book is published by? That's a complete non sequitur.
Barton says that the purpose of his Jefferson book is to debunk what he says are lies about Jefferson from others; I write books debunking what I say are Barton's lies about Jefferson. Therefore, you must also think that Barton is wasting his time and should be doing something "more lasting and worthwhile," right?
You don't seem to think about much of anything "atall," tom. When's the last time you actually wrote anything here yourself? Your last post was well over a year ago. Why don't you go find something to write about yourself instead of criticizing me for what I choose to write about?
Actually I wrote several pieces on natural law this month, Javert. Not that I don't appreciate you keeping the republic safe from meaningless resolutions from Randy Forbes, but this latest bit about David Barton's self-publishing represents a new desperation to discredit him.
Oooohhh ... so clever calling me Javert ... I'm sure you think you're just oh so clever for coming up with that one ... LOL
I do think it's important to call out Barton on his deceptive practices and his thinking that the rules don't apply to him. It's all part of his overall dishonesty, and, in my opinion, should be brought to light. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not you find it significant enough to write about. I do. But please do continue to fancy yourself the arbiter of what's significant and what isn't if that's what you need to do to make yourself feel important.
And by making it personal and ugly like this, you bind his remaining adherents closer to him. Rock on, then, if it gets you off.
As for your own polemical work, I care about it only as much as it hits the shores of this blog. The irony is that Barton hit the rocks first of all by [as I predicted] overshooting on Jefferson, and via Warren Throckmorton's less unhinged and polemical style of fisking, unluckily dropped into the sights of left-wing activists playing the race card, pressuring Barton's religion-oriented publisher to drop him for fear of losing future business.
For it was not the Kaskaskia Indians who got him, it was soft-peddling Jefferson as slaveowner.
I suppose there's some justice in Barton being "foul-hooked,"
and I really have no problem with him being forced to pay for his sins against history. But as it turned out, it was politics and it was emotion that got him, not his scholarly malpractice.
So I do find this whole drama interesting in that respect. But it has very little to do with history and everything to do with culture war---on both sides, not just his.
10 comments:
I think we have our Javert Award winner for 2012.
Although Javert oughtta keep in mind that if she drives David Barton out of business, she's outta business, too.
Tom ... I'd like nothing better to be "outta business" as far as debunking Barton and the other revisionists goes. I'm really hoping that happens at some point so that I can turn my attention to writing about other historical stuff I want to write about that has nothing to do with religion. First on the list is a biography I'd like to write of a particular "forgotten" founding father who I find extremely interesting who nobody's ever written a biography of. I actually have ideas for several books that have nothing to do with the religious crap. And if I my goal was to make money at this "business," these other book ideas I have would certainly be more mainstream and commercially advantageous to me, as they would appeal to a much wider, more general audience than what I write now. I'd much rather be writing these other books than debunking Barton's lies, but as long as Barton is out there lying, I'll be writing about him.
Since you yourself are self-published, this little "scandal" doesn't have much gas, sorry. But if hounding this nonentity is to be your life's work instead of something more lasting and worthwhile, so be it. But one day, perhaps soon, David Barton will be gone, and your own work as a handful of straw.
How on earth is me being self-published in any way relevant to David Barton lying about who his book is published by? That's a complete non sequitur.
Barton says that the purpose of his Jefferson book is to debunk what he says are lies about Jefferson from others; I write books debunking what I say are Barton's lies about Jefferson. Therefore, you must also think that Barton is wasting his time and should be doing something "more lasting and worthwhile," right?
I don't think about David Barton much atall, least of all petty stuff like this.
You don't seem to think about much of anything "atall," tom. When's the last time you actually wrote anything here yourself? Your last post was well over a year ago. Why don't you go find something to write about yourself instead of criticizing me for what I choose to write about?
Actually I wrote several pieces on natural law this month, Javert. Not that I don't appreciate you keeping the republic safe from meaningless resolutions from Randy Forbes, but this latest bit about David Barton's self-publishing represents a new desperation to discredit him.
Oooohhh ... so clever calling me Javert ... I'm sure you think you're just oh so clever for coming up with that one ... LOL
I do think it's important to call out Barton on his deceptive practices and his thinking that the rules don't apply to him. It's all part of his overall dishonesty, and, in my opinion, should be brought to light. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether or not you find it significant enough to write about. I do. But please do continue to fancy yourself the arbiter of what's significant and what isn't if that's what you need to do to make yourself feel important.
It's all part of his overall dishonesty...
And by making it personal and ugly like this, you bind his remaining adherents closer to him. Rock on, then, if it gets you off.
As for your own polemical work, I care about it only as much as it hits the shores of this blog. The irony is that Barton hit the rocks first of all by [as I predicted] overshooting on Jefferson, and via Warren Throckmorton's less unhinged and polemical style of fisking, unluckily dropped into the sights of left-wing activists playing the race card, pressuring Barton's religion-oriented publisher to drop him for fear of losing future business.
For it was not the Kaskaskia Indians who got him, it was soft-peddling Jefferson as slaveowner.
I suppose there's some justice in Barton being "foul-hooked,"
http://www.upflyfishing.com/subpages/tipsandtechniques/fairvsfoulhookedfish.html
and I really have no problem with him being forced to pay for his sins against history. But as it turned out, it was politics and it was emotion that got him, not his scholarly malpractice.
So I do find this whole drama interesting in that respect. But it has very little to do with history and everything to do with culture war---on both sides, not just his.
Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!
Giaonhan247 chuyên dịch vụ mua hàng mỹ từ dịch vụ order hàng mỹ hay nhận mua nước hoa pháp từ website nổi tiếng hàng đầu nước Mỹ mua hàng ebay ship về VN uy tín, giá rẻ.
Post a Comment