Thursday, January 3, 2013

More From Rodda on Barton's Publisher

Chris Rodda explains more about David Barton's book as it is currently being sold on Amazon.

14 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

"...But what he [David Barton]is really doing is selling off the 17,000 Thomas Nelson copies that he had to buy back from Thomas Nelson when they pulled the book."

Did David Barton HAVE to buy back those 17,000 copies from Thomas Nelson?

We strive for accuracy above all, afterall. Justice never sleeps.

;-P

Chris rodda said...

OK ... I worded that poorly in the explanatory note that I put in the image I sent to Amazon. What I meant by "had to" was that the books he is currently selling "had to" be the 17,000 copies he bought back from Thomas Nelson, and not a new edition, not that he had to buy them back from Thomas Nelson. I should have read it over more carefully before I sent it. I'm sure that Barton would have wanted to buy back those 17,000 books to keep the book available while he's getting an actual new edition printed, and it wasn't that he "had to" buy them back.

This, of course, does not change my point in the least, which is that Barton was deceptively trying to sell off these 17,000 copies as a new edition published by his own WallBuilder Press when they are not a new edition.

Tom, of course, will delight in having found this poor choice of words on my part, being, as usual, the first person to post a comment on this post about me and David Barton, despite his repeated insistence of having no interest "atall" in me or David Barton.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Stop blaming me for your screwups. Mostly I'm pointing out that you hold others to standards that you don't meet yourself. There's a word for that.

Technically and ethically, you owe David Barton a retraction and apology for this.

Chris Rodda said...

How on earth am I blaming YOU for my "screwups"? I worded something poorly, and can see how it could be misinterpreted, and am blaming nobody but MYSELF for that!

I don't owe Barton an apology - I am still accusing him of deceptively trying to sell off one edition of his book as another edition by falsely claiming that it has a different publisher. It makes no difference whatsoever whether Barton chose to buy the books back or had to buy the books back. Either way he has these 17,000 copies, and he deliberately lied about who they were published by to be able to start selling them on Amazon again.

It's Barton who should be apologizing - to Amazon for giving them false product information, and to the Amazon customers who thought they were buying the new edition that Barton repeatedly promised he'd be publishing.

Tom Van Dyke said...

By any ethical standard, you owe David Barton a correction. The rules apply to you too.

jimmiraybob said...

Whether Barton "had" to do so by contract or some other exigency - a chance to profit - the bottom line is that they were bought back and Chris has acknowledged that there was better wording that could have been used.

To make a kneejerk comparison with what Barton does, whether measured by intent, magnitude or volume, was a silly provocation. But in doubling and tripling - and I'm sure quadrupling down before its over with - it becomes childish and petty.

With all the miracles of modern medicine there's probably a perspective throttle that can be installed. Just sayin'.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Mistakes born of malice are morally and even legally more grave than the type that Barton makes. There is indeed a lack of perspective here.

Chris Rodda said...

You have a serious problem, Tom. I'm done even attempting to respond to your obsession with anything I write or do concerning Barton. You take it way to personally for someone who it has absolutely nothing to do with.

Tom Van Dyke said...

This has nothing to do with me. You're the one who screwed up. Ethically, you owe David Barton a correction and attacking the messenger won't change that. Your moral calculus is off: your behavior isn't excusable no matter what your supporters tell you.

bpabbott said...

Mistakes born of malice? By his own rule, Tom owes Chris an apology for inferring what she didn't intend to imply. If he didn't have so much malice in him he could have *asked* for a clarification before starting with the damning rhetoric.

jimmiraybob said...

From a post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars at:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/01/05/barton-hate-is-a-virtue-tolerance-a-sin/#more-14424
Barton in a radio discussion - "WallBuilders Live":
“So let me throw out the thought that I had here, this is just throwing out the title for a book: When tolerance is a sin and hate is a virtue.”
“…no, hate is a good thing!”
“I mean hating Nazis, that’s a good thing.”
At this point I – jrb – might say that hating Nazism but not hating the person is what he means. No? And then, anticipating this line of query…
“And people say ‘well, you hate their philosophy, you don’t hate the people.’ No, I hate people who… [list of bad things that Nazis did].” But then he does pull out of the dive, “Alright, I love them as a person, yes Jesus died for them, I understand, but I hate certain things.” Yes, I realize that he’s winging it and possibly accidentally giving too much away.
Which brings us to liberalism, or at least Barton’s fevered understanding of liberalism: “we’ve got to get back to that same type of intolerance, that we’re going to be intolerant of liberalism.” [Interesting conflation – intolerance of Nazism, intolerance of liberalism (of which both the Nazis and the Church were uber intolerant; along with intellectualism and impurities). Let’s see, after a devastating world war to eradicate Nazism, many leading Nazis were tried and executed…if only there was a solution for liberalism.]
I’ll assume that he means that he hates the liberalism but loves the person…but maybe hates the person who is a liberal or possibly those who do the liberal things….or something.
Well, there’s your historian for ya. It’s about propagandizing history to fight the things he chooses to hate and/or the things for which he thinks that we should not be or do or tolerate. In this case, liberalism…because…well, Nazism. Booyah.
Yet, Chris used a poor choice of words in working to undo Barton’s overly abundant lies and misinformation used to fight his ideological war on the half of humanity that he hates and/or thinks should not be tolerated. I should point out that Chris also, in my humble opinion, used some questionable punctuation. Chris, all I can say is stop the hate.

jimmiraybob said...

[The spacing is reformatted a bit for clarity. My previous posted comment can be undone if needed. I realize that I now owe David Barton an apology.]

From a post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars at:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/01/05/barton-hate-is-a-virtue-tolerance-a-sin/#more-14424

Barton in a radio discussion - "WallBuilders Live":

“So let me throw out the thought that I had here, this is just throwing out the title for a book: When tolerance is a sin and hate is a virtue.”

“…no, hate is a good thing!”

“I mean hating Nazis, that’s a good thing.”

At this point I – jrb – might say that hating Nazism but not hating the person is what he means. No? And then, anticipating this line of query…

“And people say ‘well, you hate their philosophy, you don’t hate the people.’ No, I hate people who… [list of bad things that Nazis did].” But then he does pull out of the dive, “Alright, I love them as a person, yes Jesus died for them, I understand, but I hate certain things.” Yes, I realize that he’s winging it and possibly accidentally giving too much away.

Which brings us to liberalism, or at least Barton’s fevered understanding of liberalism: “we’ve got to get back to that same type of intolerance, that we’re going to be intolerant of liberalism.” [Interesting conflation – intolerance of Nazism, intolerance of liberalism (of which both the Nazis and the Church were uber intolerant; along with intellectualism and impurities). Let’s see, after a devastating world war to eradicate Nazism, many leading Nazis were tried and executed…if only there was a solution for liberalism.]

I’ll assume that he means that he hates the liberalism but loves the person…but maybe hates the person who is a liberal or possibly those who do the liberal things….or something.

Well, there’s your historian for ya. It’s about propagandizing history to fight the things he chooses to hate and/or the things for which he thinks that we should not be or do or tolerate. In this case, liberalism…because…well, Nazism. Booyah.

Yet, Chris used a poor choice of words in working to undo Barton’s overly abundant lies and misinformation used to fight his ideological war on the half of humanity that he hates and/or thinks should not be tolerated. I should point out that Chris also, in my humble opinion, used some questionable punctuation. Chris, all I can say is stop the hate.

Chris Rodda said...

ROFLMAO, jimmiraybob! Just what makes you the arbiter of what constitutes questionable punctation? Huh? I'm waiting! Your crack about my punctuation was clearly born of malice ... LOL

Tom Van Dyke said...


Chris owes David Barton a correction. And Ben, her malice toward him is manifest throughout her work. The rest here is nonsense.