Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8150Re: Review of "Triumph Over Adversity"

Expand Messages
  • josepharose@yahoo.com
    Oct 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
      >
      > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
      here (especially as he is not present to defend himself)....

      It appears that Dr. David E. Long is a history professor and has a
      doctorate. As he is not present and if his character or bias need
      *not* be topics, I see no reason to accuse him of "purposeful
      misrepresentation" or question his status as a gentleman.

      Joseph Rose



      --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
      > --- In civilwarwest@y..., LWhite64@a... wrote:
      > > Folks,
      > > Just to chime in on this briefly, David Long worked here
      at
      > > Chickamauga as a seasonal last summer, so if this is him, then it
      > wasnt Mr.
      > > Rose as some have said. Mr. Long was quite anti Grant as well.
      >
      > I'd like to make a few points.
      >
      > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
      here
      > (especially as he is not present to defend himself). Two other
      > posters, including the original poster, brought those topics up,
      and
      > only then did I feel compelled to respond. Does Mr. Long have an
      axe
      > to grind? Is his purposeful misrepresentation of my book the act
      of
      > a gentleman? That's up to each of you to decide.
      >
      > Mr. Long's review questioned my integrity, much as Mr. Rose has
      > questioned my integrity. I hope that in the past and in the flurry
      > aroused by this discussion that we now understand whose integrity
      is
      > properly at issue. Had Mr. Rose wanted to survey the scholarly
      > reception to my book, he might have pointed to reviews by James
      > McPherson, Peter Parish, and Robert Remini to set Mr. Long's review
      > in context. I've already pointed to a section of Mr. Long's review
      > that should raise questions about his scholarship.
      >
      > Finally, I thought that whatever the merits of previous exchanges,
      a
      > good number of members of this newsgroup have tired of this
      > discussion. I post only because I have come under criticism yet
      > again from a familiar source, and I do have the right of self-
      defense
      > (and if I don't, the moderators can remove me immediately). If
      that
      > leads to a new chorus of "a plague on both your houses," I'll
      simply
      > submit that I can't wait until you come under attack here; let's
      see
      > how you respond. Mr. Rose has taken his road show elsewhere on the
      > net, repeating the same sort of things debated to death here as if
      > nothing has changed his mind in the slightest; other people have
      > notified me that he nags them with posts and messages. Thus it
      seems
      > useless to debate him except insofar as it might be important not
      to
      > allow his assertions, when mistaken or flawed, to go unchallenged;
      > we've seen how that process degenerates. I look forward to his
      > promised essays.
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic