Wednesday, December 14, 2011

The Raven Chronicles

On the comment thread following Kevin Levin's article at The Atlantic, Susan Frise Hathaway posted a civil and thoughtful comment -- to which somebody named The Raven replied, starting with this ad hominem attack:
"You are a denialist and public liar. Slavery caused the American Civil War. Feel free to ignore decades of scholarly research and books like Battlecry of Freedom. Pride in ignorance is proclaimed here at your own peril."
She also mouthed off to me and others in that comment thread (but, predictably, Robert Baker chooses to refer only to SHPG folks as trolls.)

Then she zoomed over to Perfesser Simpson's blog to make snide remarks to me in a comment thread there.

For some reason, the fact that I have written and published fiction is fascinating to some of our critics. The perfesser has thrown off on my novel-writing abilities several times (without having read my novel, of course) and he's thrown off on self-publishing -- apparently because two of my three stories were self-published. Actually, I find myself in good company; I'm not a bit ashamed to be classified with them. I guess the perfesser looks down his nose at them, too, for self-publishing....

Famous Self-published Authors -- http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm

In any case, this is not my first encounter with Raven, who called Susan a "public liar." I first encountered her on Levin's blog several months ago and wrote about it here:

Time to Bring Back Backsass (scroll down to nearly the end of the entry, last few paragraphs, beginning "And that's how it stood...")
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/02/time-to-bring-back-backsass.html

Backsass -- Quoth the Raven
http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/02/backsass-quoth-raven.html

Yesterday, over at Perfesser Simpson's Crossroads, she posted to me:
"Obsession over the Lost Cause has made you an Internet stalker. Why don’t you leave discussion of history with those who have requisite knowledge and intellect? Then you’ll have more time to write another “romance novel”, for people with grade-school literacy.?
Izzat right? Of course, I submitted a reply, and of course, the censorin', prevaricatin' perfesser, the resident Anthony Fremont at Civil War Crossroads, sent it to the cornfield.


But not to worry. I saved a copy. Here 'tis:
My, my. Such snippiness.

Very likely, my response will be sent to the Crossroads cornfield, but I'll submit it, anyway.

Openly posting on comment threads using my real name is stalking? No, stalking is what Professor Simpson does -- "Over the last few weeks I’ve raised questions about various assertions I encounter as I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War." https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/a-failure-to-communicate-the-case-of-helga-ross/

"Tiptoeing" and lurking and spying on groups he perceives as not doing Civil War "right-think" -- and then coming back here to make derogatory posts about the people he's spied on -- that's internet stalking. I don't tiptoe, and I don't lurk -- I willingly post with my own name. It's not my fault if my comments get censored by tolerance-and-diversity bloggers...

As for obsession...Between November 14 and December 8 -- less than one month, Brooks Simpson has posted 8 -- count 'em, EIGHT, viii, (8), posts either about me, or that include references to me.

Heritage versus History -- Dec 8
Romancing the Flag -- Dec 6
Help Connie Chastain Out -- Dec 4
The Sunday Question: A Better Symbol for Southern Heritage? Dec 4
The Strawman as Other -- Nov 30
New Discoveries From Ann DeWitt -- Nov 20
What’s Wrong With This Icon? -- Nov 17 (Doesn't mention me by name, but the entire post is about a graphic I designed)
Guilty Pleasures … and the Hypocrisy of Connie Chastain Nov 14
That's obsession.

Oh, by the way, regarding romance readers and "grade-school literacy".... Do bigotry much, do you? Statistics on the educational level of romance readers:

42% have a bachelor’s degree or higher …
--27% have college degrees
--15% have post-graduate work or degrees
7% have associate degrees
17% have attended a trade school or have some college
23% have high school diplomas

~Compiled from studies commissioned by the Romance Writers of America:
http://64.211.220.251/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?webcode=StatisticsReader

Stay in school and study hard, Raven, and you to might aspire to becoming a romance reader some day.
Look, I can be as snippy as the next blogger, but I don't pretend to be part of the Tolerance-and-diversity Hypocrites Association. Besides, my namecalling is far more likely to deal with exhibited behavior, underlying motives and/or level of integrity than with intelligence or educational levels. Of course, some academics define people solely by their educational level, and they like to belittle people's intelligence, but that leaves out a whole lot of a human being's humanity.

In any case, I found it very interesting that this chit (indicating childish behavior, folks), Raven, who called Susan Frise Hathaway a public liar, has a very public blog that starts with (as of Dec 14) a post from 11 months ago, titled Reloaded, that is a HUGE PUBLIC LIE -- blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabriel Giffords shooting.

I don't follow imperial politics and related news like I used to, but I observed enough to know that after the shooting, left-liberals and their enablers in the mainstream media went absolutely bonkers, blaming Palin's re-election map and screeching about "right-wing rhetoric" inciting violence, blah-blah-blah...

I also know that information that quickly began to emerge about the shooter, Jared Loughner, indicated he was not a right-wing-Republican controlled automaton helplessly carrying out rightwing-influenced violence against innocent Democrats, but a demented lunatic under no political influence at all. The Southern Poverty Law Center did its best to create a connection, fabricating imaginary straws even it was unable to grasp at... Fact is, even those who wanted to wrongly blame Palin and/or "rightwing vitriol" had to give it up in the face of the facts about Loughner....

But there it is, still on The Raven's blog, when she's had plenty of time to submit to the truth and remove it. So this "public liar" accusation far better fits The Raven herself. Perhaps she should change her name and symbol to ... The Vulture... or maybe, The Buzzard.

==========

Photo Credits:

~ Billy Mumy as Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone Episode It's A Good Life is translinked from Wikipedia under Fair Use of U.S. Copyright law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:It%27s_A_Good_Life.JPG

~ Photo of California Condor As a work of the U.S. federal government, this image is in the public domain.

43 comments :

  1. OMG.....The Buzzard.......that is hilarious.....your words are like a sword and you know how to use them well....bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen Connie! It's folks like "raven" that make a serious viewing of the facts and a civil debate of the issues impossible! Folks like raven just fall in line with their name calling when they refuse to face anything but the facts they can twist to suit themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was the second best Twilight Zone Ever!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay, David. I'll bite. What was the best Twilight Zone episode?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The one where William Shatner sees a gremlin on the wing of a plane !

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love mean Billy Mumy. Keep em on their toes Connie. "You're a bad man, a very bad man."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't necessarily agree with Raven's public forum etiquette, but her statement isn't ad hominem. It has to be an unrelated insult within context material. Such as, "You don't anything about history because you are poor." Being poor has nothing to do the knowledge of history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "know* anything," Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Calling someone a "denialist" and "public liar" constitutes ad hominem attacks. Susan didn't deny slavery as a cause of the war -- therefore, she's not a denialist. Also, calling someone a public liar because you disagree with their view of history is most certainly ad hominem. It is aimed at the person, not at what the person said.

    If being poor has nothing to do with the knowledge of history, neither does being a car salesman or a plumber.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy. - Gary Curtis "Argumentum ad Hominem.

    It also may not be fallacious when relevant to the issue. Denialist would qualify. I don't know the context of 'public liar' so I can't pass opinion.

    To you second opinion, that is a loose statement associated with ad Hominem. You could very well have a degree in history and be poor. They are irrelevant contingencies that just happen to correlated. Same with a car salesman or a plumber. If I said, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to history because you write romance novels. That is ad Hominem. However, if I said you don't know anything about history because you have no basis of historiography, that is relevant.

    Have a Dixie Day.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But Susan clearly stated that slavery was a cause of the war, so she wasn't denying and she wasn't lying, therefore Raven's attacks on her integrity were ad hominem.

    I'm glad you admit somebody's vocation doesn't prohibit their being knowledgeable about an avocation. You once said, "I'm not going to go to a car dealer for medical advice. I'm not going to seek out a plumber to find out the molecular structure and mutation of evolution."

    If the car dealer is a former paramedic, you might go to him for medical advice; not treatment, perhaps, but advice based on his knowledge -- why not? And if the plumber has an avocational interest in evolution, and has a website about molecular structure and mutation re: evolution, nad you read it when it comes up in a google search, you are seeking him out to find out about it. And Raven did imply, on Simpson's site, that I don't know history because I write romance novels.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Again, I stated that I do not know what the context was so you can go on and on about that all you want. HOWEVER, it still is not ad Hominem unless it is directly out of context. Verbal abuse and name calling directed at a person is not ad Hominem. Sorry, but it is not.

    Yea, I did say that. But I still am not going to go to them unless their field is in that area. If there is a Mechanic that happens to be a published expert in the field of Evolution, then that pretty much makes him a scientist. Same fore a Car Dealer. However, I am not simply going to go to someone that simply runs a blog giving their opinion (which in most cases is wrong) and as for their historical interpretation when I can clearly see they have flawed research methodology. Sorry you can't seem to understand the gist of that.

    Then Raven's attack on Susan's site was ad Hominem. Not the accusations of liar and denier. Glad I could help you with the avenue of ad Hominem and logical fallacy. Keep in mind though that not all ad Hominem is logical fallacy just like not all insults are not ad Hominem

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, the accusation of deniar and liar were ad hominems -- and a great indicator of the attacker's character.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Several things caused the Civil War. Not one item by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Connie, no matter how many times you say a thing over and over does not make it true. The South won the war, the South won the war. (searches wikipedia....) nope still lost. I really do not know how else to reveal to you the connections of logical fallacies and ad Hominem.

    BorderRuffian, thanks for chiming in. you are correct in that assumption. Tariffs, Sovereignty, Westward Expansion, Sectionalism, Nationalism, and cultural differences are also involved. It is just interesting that each of those premises involves Slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rob, PLEASE. Raven attacked the PERSON, not the ARGUMENT. She didn't say, "That's a denial. That's a lie." She said SUSAN was a DENIALIST and PUBLIC LIAR. That's a PERSONAL ATTACK.

    Slavery was artificially connected to the issues of sectionalism, according to William Seward. "Every question, political, civil, or ecclesiastical, however foreign to the subject of slavery, brings up slavery as an incident, and the incident supplants the principal question."

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Robert:
    "Tariffs, Sovereignty, Westward Expansion, Sectionalism, Nationalism, and cultural differences are also involved. It is just interesting that each of those premises involves Slavery."

    Tarriffs involved slavery?

    Westward expansion?

    What was the dispute over the territories about?

    Keeping slaves out? or keeping whites in?

    "...we will make inducements for every free black among us to find his home in a more congenial climate in Central America or in Lower Mexico, and we will be divested of every one of them; and then, endowed with a splendid domain that we shall get, we will adopt a homestead policy, and we will invite the poor, the destitute, industrious white man from every clime under heaven, to come in there and make his fortune. So, sir, we will build up a nation, renovated by this process, of white laboring men."

    Benjamin Wade, Radical Republican (Ohio), United States Senate, December 17, 1860

    ReplyDelete
  19. So looking at that quote from Wade...

    Is the dispute over the territories caused by pro-slavery southerners? or white racist northerners?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Again Connie, just because it is a personal attack, does not make it ad Hominem. You are making a common misconception.

    And your wrong about Steward but thank you for proving a point on methodology.

    "When this answer shall be given it will appear that the question of dissolving the Union is a complex question that it embraces the fearful issue whether the Union shall stand and slavery under the steady peaceful action of moral social and political causes, be removed by gradual voluntary effort and with compensation or whether the Union shall be dissolved and civil wars ensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation. We are now arrived at that stage of our national progress when that crisis can be foreseen, when we must foresee it directly before us.Its shadow is upon us It darkens the legislative halls, the temples of worship and the home and the hearth. Every question, political, civil, or ecclesiastical however foreign to the subject of slavery brings up slavery as an incident the supplants the principal question. subject slavery brings up slavery incident supplants the principal question. We hear of nothing but slavery, and we can talk of nothing but slavery. And now it seems to me that all our difficulties, embarrassments, and dangers arise not out of unlawful perversions of the question of slavery as some suppose, but from the want of moral courage to meet this question of emancipation as we ought." He is not commenting on its inflation, but on the fact that its moral corruption is everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, Tariffs involved slavery because the Southern economy was driven on agriculture. Namely, "King Cotton." The South enjoyed lucrative foreign trade with England. Ever since 1812, the U.S. government had been using tariffs to combat the cheap prices of British goods so that there weaker industrial complex at the time could keep up. Most southern states, being mainly agricultural resented this notion as it traded cotton to Britain a lot. This means that the Southern Economy was very much dependent on exportation foreign and domestic....Who was picking that cotton Border.

    Yes, westward expansion. Wilmot provisio, Missouri Compromise, California slave vote. Kansas-Nebraska and "bleeding Kansas." Compromise of 1850.

    Also, http://books.google.com/books?id=tKJkOhQqC_QC&pg=PA35&dq=%22...we+will+make+inducements+for+every+free+black+among+us+to+find+his+home+in+a+more+congenial+climate+in+Central+America+or+in+Lower+Mexico,+and+we+will+be+divested+of+every+one+of+them;+and+then,+endowed+with+a+splendid+domain+that+we+shall+get,+we+will+adopt+a+homestead+policy,+and+we+will+invite+the+poor,+the+destitute,+industrious+white+man+from+every+clime+under+heaven,+to+come+in+there+and+make+his+fortune.+So,+sir,+we+will+build+up+a+nation,+renovated+by+this+process,+of+white+laboring+men.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q6HrTsf4LYyJtwfBtdiwCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22...we%20will%20make%20inducements%20for%20every%20free%20black%20among%20us%20to%20find%20his%20home%20in%20a%20more%20congenial%20climate%20in%20Central%20America%20or%20in%20Lower%20Mexico%2C%20and%20we%20will%20be%20divested%20of%20every%20one%20of%20them%3B%20and%20then%2C%20endowed%20with%20a%20splendid%20domain%20that%20we%20shall%20get%2C%20we%20will%20adopt%20a%20homestead%20policy%2C%20and%20we%20will%20invite%20the%20poor%2C%20the%20destitute%2C%20industrious%20white%20man%20from%20every%20clime%20under%20heaven%2C%20to%20come%20in%20there%20and%20make%20his%20fortune.%20So%2C%20sir%2C%20we%20will%20build%20up%20a%20nation%2C%20renovated%20by%20this%20process%2C%20of%20white%20laboring%20men.%22&f=false

    Don't cherry pick your quotes. You're making yourself look silly.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robert-
    "Yes, Tariffs involved slavery because the Southern economy was driven on agriculture."

    The farmer that had no slaves was just as opposed to high tariffs as the slaveowner. About 75-80% of southern farms had no slaves.

    If slavery had never been introduced into the American colonies the South would still have been an agricultural region and would still have opposed high tariffs.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So your defense is a hypothetical situation? If the Civil War would have not been fought, then 600,000 Americans would not have died. But it did, and slavery was introduced. Let's stay in this reality.

    "The farmer that had no slaves was just as opposed to high tariffs as the slaveowner. About 75-80% of southern farms had no slaves."

    True, but the simple farmer were not the ones in charge of the political system issuing secession rhetoric for all to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The incident supplants the principal question.... Slavery was given elevated importance over all other considerations. But you're welcome to keep your slave-colored blinders on....

    ReplyDelete
  25. So slavery being introduced to America supplants the question of what role slavery had?.....do you use pom poms when you cheerlead?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is that directed at me or BR? If at me, I've told you once -- don't come here and put words in my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The incident supplants the principal question.... Slavery was given elevated importance over all other considerations."

    I restate my previous question.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, direct your question to William Henry Seward. He's the one who said it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pretty sure that one has already been debunked. Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Sez" anyone that reads the entire page and not just the one sentence you want them to.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You can't speak for everyone who has read it. Sorry. You may think you're omniscient, but ya ain't.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yea Connie I don't think you realize there is a difference between your opinion and what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rob, to make the claim you're making -- that anyone who has read the speech says the same thing you're saying -- you'd have to know what EVERYONE who has read the speech has said about it. You can't know that. You're claiming to know something you can't know.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The same claim you are making Connie. Even though mine is more accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ah, no, not the same thing at all. AT. ALL.

    My claim, Rob, is that you can't know the unknowable, which is certainly more accurate than your claiming to know what everyone who ever read the speech said about it. You simply can't know that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is the same thing. You pass knowledge off as if you have the inner workings of exactly everything you speak of. For instance, your idea of what constitutes an ad hominem attack. My claim is not knowing the unknowable. It is knowable given you read the entire PAGE in this instance instead of cherry picking a random paragraph sentence or word.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rob, you implied anyone (that would mean everyone) who ever read the entire "page" (presumably you mean the entire speech) would agree with your interpretation, not mine. I'm saying you can't know WHAT they all would think; you can't even know who has read it and who hasn't, much less what they think about it. You don't even understand what I'm saying is not knowable... The kind of authoritarian mentality you exhibit is why I have less and less respect for "college educations" these days....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Some interpretations are better than others Connie. That's how things work. That's how the Scientific Method works. A system to find the most conclusive and accurate statement closest to the truth. The kind of authoritarian attitude you exhibit exemplifies that you have an agenda.

    P.S. On a personal note, I do admire your resistance to blocking people from your pages. Discourse is always mental exercise regardless of differentiation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rob, we're not even talking about the same thing. It's astounding to think you don't know that -- but maybe you don't. I'll try one more time and if you still don't get it, I'll have to assume you're playing dumb for a purpose.

    Regarding Seward's quote, you said, "So slavery being introduced to America supplants the question of what role slavery had?"

    Well, of course, that's not what Seward was saying, not at all, not even close. But I could see what you were doing and I had no patience for it so I replied, "Is that directed at me or BR (Border Ruffian)? If at me, I've told you once -- don't come here and put words in my mouth."

    You: "The incident supplants the principal question.... Slavery was given elevated importance over all other considerations." I restate my previous question.

    (Your previous question, remember, was, "So slavery being introduced to America supplants the question of what role slavery had?") I replied, "Well, direct your question to William Henry Seward. He's the one who said it."

    You: Pretty sure that one has already been debunked. Thanks for playing.

    Me: Sez you.

    You: "Sez" anyone that reads the entire page and not just the one sentence you want them to.

    ======

    That is what you cannot know. You cannot know that ANYONE (which would mean EVERYONE) who read the entire page has debunked it. You would have to know everyone who has read it, and you can't know that. You weren't alive for the vast majority of the time that the records of the speech have been in existence. You can't know everyone who has read it, let alone whether they debunked it, or whether they claim it has "already been debunked." Not unless you're claiming to be omniscient. Are you?

    ReplyDelete
  40. That was a question intended for you due to your previous statement. It was a question Connie. I cannot put words in your mouth in the form of a question. Answer the question, or quit making accusations.

    Actually you can know, because the original intent of the Seward comments was when you commented by saying, "Slavery was artificially connected to the issues of sectionalism, according to William Seward. "Every question, political, civil, or ecclesiastical, however foreign to the subject of slavery, brings up slavery as an incident, and the incident supplants the principal question.""

    After reading the entire passage and not just what you quoted. Seward is not talking about it being inflated and thrown in front of others. He is stating that it is everywhere in every issue. It supersedes every issue. He deems it as the most important issue. That's why he makes the gentlemanly reference to courage.

    Just because you think you are right, does not mean it is so. You have yet to provide any reasoning behind why you think he is advocating your position. Instead you just choose to be argumentative and tell me that I am putting words in your mouth. As it appears that you will not budge nor provide reasoning for your stance, I think this post has run its course.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've explained it until I'm blue in the face; you aren't even talking about the same thing I'm talking about, so you're right. No point in continuing.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome, but monitored.