<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><PRE>Doug Henwood wrote:</PRE><PRE>>Chuck Grimes asked me offlist why I didn't want any discussion of <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>>Churchill's footnoting practices. It's a good question, and here's <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>>what I said:<o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>><o:p> </o:p></PRE><PRE>>>I'm afraid it'd be a lot of people talking about what they don't <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>>>know much about. Also, I gotta say, it makes me nervous that pissing <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>>>on Churchill's scholarship will contribute something to minimizing <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>>>the horror of Indian genocide. So what if he got some details wrong, <o:p></o:p></PRE><PRE>>>white people did kill 90% of them and still treat them like shit.</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>So you're refusing to allow a discussion of the evidence, because you already have opinions</PRE><PRE>about a subject that you don't know much about, and introducing inconvenient facts might change</PRE><PRE>your mind. It's okay to invent a genocide that never happened, because you think other</PRE><PRE>genocides like it probably did happen. Am I reading you correctly here?</PRE><PRE>I hope not.</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Meanwhile, you have allowed a number of ad hominem attacks on me. Ad hominem, okay;</PRE><PRE>discussion of evidence, out of bounds. I think your priorities are backwards. I have found</PRE><PRE>value in your journalism in the past. But if this is your approach to evidence, I'm</PRE><PRE>going to have to read you a bit differently from here on out. Please tell me</PRE><PRE>it was a momentary lapse, and not your normal working method.</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Thomas Brown</PRE><PRE><o:p></o:p> </PRE></DIV></BODY></HTML>