Please post any ad hominem attacks I made concerning you otherwise don't suggest
that I have made them by posting something like this directly after a comment of mine.
Questioning your motives is not an ad hominem if those motives are part of the debate.
>
> First, you don't understand the timeline. Churchill's fabrication of the
> Mandan
> genocide was outed last September in an essay in Commentary, which was
> reprinted on the History News Network web site. My only contribution
> was to flesh out some of the evidence. LaVelle's exegesis of Churchill's
> plagiarism and fabrication is on his web page. The press would have found
> this story whether I existed or not. [TB]
This is news to me and it certainly makes you seem far less opportunistic than I
originally thought. Letting it drop after the right-wing assault on Churchill had started
would have been less opportunistic still in my mind and the right thing to do but even if
you were so inclined I realize it is easier to suggest than to do. Still if the your essay
came out before the move to oust Churchill began the charge of opportunism is
effectively removed as a valid criticism in my view. I will check the timing of the release
of your material and issue an apology to you for calling your attack opportunistic if
YOUR essay pre-dates the attack on Churchill. I have as of yet been unable to find any
reference to your essay pre-dating Feb 8th 2005. I am aware of the dates for LaVelle's
criticisms going back to at least '96.
So far to the best of my knowledge on you, Bob Black and John Lavelle have leveled
any plagerism or fictional citation charge against Churchill. I will not contribute to
Churchills problems by engaging in that debate at this time since I believe its validity
has not been established.
>
> Second, your suggestion that it's strategically correct to withhold
> information
> simply to gain a political advantage reveals that you and I live on
> different ethical
> planets. I think this strategy is elitist and ethically untenable. And to
> justify concealing
> information in order to advance a free speech agenda, you would have to
> twist
> yourself into a moral pretzel. [TB]
There is a difference between concealing knowledge with the intent of preventing it from
becoming public and timing the release to be more or less damaging depending on the
desired outcome. The later is what I have advocated. The twisting is being done by you
and you are twisting my words. To suppose that the release of information is not timed
for effectiveness is naïve.
>
> >I am surprised it isn't obvious to you but then most people have a hell of
> >a difficult time
> >realizing their mistakes and an even greater time publicly admitting them.
>
> I think you're mistaken if you believe there's a right outcome and a wrong
> outcome in this mess. If Churchill stays, the academy is delegitimized by
> his
> presence. If he goes, academic freedom is diminished. Either way,
> the academy loses.
I disagree that Churchill staying delegitimizes anything therefore having Churchill stay is
the preferable outcome in my opinion.
>
> I think firing Churchill will lead to the lesser of two evils here, because
> the
> right in Colorado will be mollified, temporarily, I hope. And he deserves
> firing, so no great loss. On the other hand, if he stays, they are going to
> take
> out their frustration on the state university system, which could be a much
> worse assault on tenure. I say throw the sharks the rotten meat and hope
> they're satiated. It needed tossing anyway.
Again we disagree on this matter and we have no hopes of changing each others position. The right will not be mollified by having Churchills head. They want a hell of a lot more than that and getting Churchill for his essay is a step in that direction.
If my criticism of you for timing this assault to coincide with a witch-hunt was incorrect I will apologize to you for the accusation but I still disagree with your assesment of Churchill concerning the fabrication of a genocide. Since I do not wish to further that cause while Churchill is fighting for his job I will not debate that topic with you right now. In another time, when the witch-hunt is over, I would be happy to go over any alleged problems with Churchills footnoting and his use of reference materials.
John Thornton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050222/bcc88d58/attachment.htm>