Corey, please. Do I really have to explain it to you?
Well, yes, I guess with your level of ... um ... integrity, it has to be explained.
I posted Mr. Sheldon's genealogical info about Kristin Szakos simply to show she is from New York, not from Mississippi. Unless you think there's something dishonorable about being from New York and not Mississippi, what's the problem pointing it out?
Simpson's "genealogical research" on my family was an attack on me, done solely for the purpose of smearing me. I showed without a doubt that his oft-stated reasons for doing it were flat-out lies.
======== I mention all this not to exonerate my kinsman -- I don't know what his involvement was in all that, and I don't really care. But I do note that primary source documentation seems to indicate little to no involvement by him.
No, the reason I mention all this is to demonstrate the sloppy scholarship, the leaving-out parts of history that don't fit with the "historian's" agenda of personal attack -- and the indication of questionable ethics that underlie it all, stemming from personal animosity. I mention it to show something about Simpson's claims.
These claims --
"...you would not want us to overlook the truth of the matter, right? That’s the difference between heritage and history ... I’m simply providing a more complete historical context ... if posting a more complete story about the actual heritage of someone who has posted much about heritage is a form of insult or belittlement, then I find that assessment curious. Would you rather be misled by fantasy masquerading as “heritage”? ... Presenting a fuller historical context helps illustrates the practical complexity of certain claims. History’s messy that way ... I prefer to explore history, and one of the results of that exploration is to show the complex relationship between heritage and history"
-- are not only complete and total bullcrap -- they're smelly, slimy flat-out lies.
Is this how they do history at Arizona State University? Putting forth statements that have no source documentation? Ignoring documentation that doesn't establish what you want established?
Simpson's lying-by-omission about someone's personal history, motivated by some kind of personal internet vendetta, establishes that his ethics are questionable -- just as the lies sprinkled liberally throughout his personal blog establish the same thing. And if ethics are questionable in one place, they're questionable, period. Which means ... how many lies has he told about the civil war and Southern heritage -- by omission or otherwise?
=========
The starkly different ethical elements of these two cases aren't difficult to grasp ... and yet you have difficulty grasping them. I'm not a bit surprised. Flogger ethics are highly questionable.
Now Ms. Connie.., You know you're dealing with juvenile minds. Mousy
ReplyDeleteTongue is no different.
Corey, please. Do I really have to explain it to you?
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, I guess with your level of ... um ... integrity, it has to be explained.
I posted Mr. Sheldon's genealogical info about Kristin Szakos simply to show she is from New York, not from Mississippi. Unless you think there's something dishonorable about being from New York and not Mississippi, what's the problem pointing it out?
Simpson's "genealogical research" on my family was an attack on me, done solely for the purpose of smearing me. I showed without a doubt that his oft-stated reasons for doing it were flat-out lies.
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-professor-of-history-does-history.html
I recapped the above blog post with this:
========
I mention all this not to exonerate my kinsman -- I don't know what his involvement was in all that, and I don't really care. But I do note that primary source documentation seems to indicate little to no involvement by him.
No, the reason I mention all this is to demonstrate the sloppy scholarship, the leaving-out parts of history that don't fit with the "historian's" agenda of personal attack -- and the indication of questionable ethics that underlie it all, stemming from personal animosity. I mention it to show something about Simpson's claims.
These claims --
"...you would not want us to overlook the truth of the matter, right? That’s the difference between heritage and history ... I’m simply providing a more complete historical context ... if posting a more complete story about the actual heritage of someone who has posted much about heritage is a form of insult or belittlement, then I find that assessment curious. Would you rather be misled by fantasy masquerading as “heritage”? ... Presenting a fuller historical context helps illustrates the practical complexity of certain claims. History’s messy that way ... I prefer to explore history, and one of the results of that exploration is to show the complex relationship between heritage and history"
-- are not only complete and total bullcrap -- they're smelly, slimy flat-out lies.
Is this how they do history at Arizona State University? Putting forth statements that have no source documentation? Ignoring documentation that doesn't establish what you want established?
Simpson's lying-by-omission about someone's personal history, motivated by some kind of personal internet vendetta, establishes that his ethics are questionable -- just as the lies sprinkled liberally throughout his personal blog establish the same thing. And if ethics are questionable in one place, they're questionable, period. Which means ... how many lies has he told about the civil war and Southern heritage -- by omission or otherwise?
=========
The starkly different ethical elements of these two cases aren't difficult to grasp ... and yet you have difficulty grasping them. I'm not a bit surprised. Flogger ethics are highly questionable.
Yes, I didn't think your level of integrity would allow you to grasp the difference in the two situations.
ReplyDelete