NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/history/10457

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 10.2 KB | 228 lines

Newsgroups: soc.history
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!briand
From: [e-mail] (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: jefferson question
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:31:21 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 216

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Corbett Ray Rowell) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Please email [e-mail]
>>>>>    Sorry about spelling errors, modem is acting up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Selected excerpts from Douglas Wilson's article on Jefferson in the
>>>>November 1992 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
>>>
>>>I found tyhe order in which you presented this as possibly misleading.
>>
>>Who the hell asked you?!
>
>It was posted in an interactive public forum. Had you wished no one
>but the person addressed to see it, you might have e-mailed them,
>as they requested.

As you state below, you did NOT read the article.  Therefore, you were
without portfolio to make comment as to the order of the excerpts, nor
should you have changed the order to suit your own perspective.  All of
which is just a nice way of saying, who the hell asked you to do any of
that?

>
>>Did you read Wilson's article?  I did, and for
>>everyone's edification, the excerpts were in EXACTLY the same order as the
>>author, Douglas Wilson wrote them.  The original poster asked for information
>>on the supposed affair between Jefferson and Hemings, I presented Wilson's
>>article as a source that such an affair is generally considered nonexistent
>                                  ^^^^^^
>>by Jefferson scholars.  A daliance perhaps, but not affair.  And where I
>                           ^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^
>>deleted things it was simply to remove digressions and elongations.  And you
>>will notice that I used continuation marks so that anyone who wants could
>>trace my deletions.
>>
>>If you found my excerpting misleading, why didn't you fill in the
>>continuations?  Perhaps because you never had the article and/or never read
>>it?
>
>Congratulations on reading an article.  I wrote on the basis of what
>you posted.

And obviously you DON'T read articles.  Particularly ones you feel
compelled to comment on and reorder excepts on until such editing suits
your own purposes theory, no matter how baseless.

>I was not criticizing your excerpting of the article, but the order it was
>presented in.  As you so eloquently statre, it was the author who ordered
>it so, not you.  Thus the problem I have is with the author, not you.

Below, from your original post you stated clearly that
the "author of the excerpts", which was me, had tried to mislead this
audience.  Douglas Wilson was the "author of the article excerpted."  Next,
time you should make sure your phrases are of an unambiguous intent.

Oh, folks, remember how he/she says that I so eloquently state it was the
author ordered the article so.  Since it is devoid of facetiousnes, I must
construe it to be a compliment.

>
>"Affair:"--an illicit amorous relationship or liason. {duration not
>    specified}                            ^^^^^--see below
>"Dal[l]iance"--sexual toying or flirtation.

From Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary, Office Edition:
"Affair:" 4. A private matter.  5. A love affair.
"Dalliance:" 1. To flirt.
"Liaison:" 3. A close relationship. 4. A adulterous sexual relationship

>
>>
>>>The substantive disagreement most scholars are talking about is with
>>>Brodie's assertion that the liason was long-term and happy, not with whether
>>>or not it happened.
>>
>>Ala this excerpt:
>>". . .  And whereas there are grounds for suspecting a liaison, such as the
>                                                        ^^^^^^^
>It seems your author would be more inclined to call it an affair than
>a dalliance.  He would most likely say that there is not enough solid
>evidence available at the moment to say for certain either way.

While you and I may argue semantical differences in regards to nouns such
"Semantics:" 1. The study of meaning in languages, esp. with regard to
historical changes."
as affair, liaison and dalliance, Wilson is quite clear that there is no
evidence to support Brodies' thesis of a 38 year affair.  And only
circumstantial evidence to support the idea of Jefferson father Hemings son
Madison, not compelling.  But, you wouldn't know that since you DIDN'T read the
article.  Also, while Wilson quotes other sources to support his argument,
you have quoted, exactly 0.

>I'll go read
>through that article and you go read the dictionary through.

WOW!  What a novel concept?  Read an article THEN comment on it's premise
and argument.

>when your
>done, lets talk some more. til then I'd rather not.

'Tis better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and
remove all doubt."

>I hope the person
>who originally requested the information got the point of my message.

I have excerpted an article by one of the pre-eminent Jefferson scholars
from a magazine with a long and distinguished history of journalistic
integrity and accuracy.  You may have a point to voice, but as yet, the
weight you have applied that point is as light as a feather and can be just
as easily swept away.

>It was not meant as an attack, but rather as a reservation I hold with
>the author *of the quoted material's* method of making an argument.

Well, it clearly came out that way.  If this is the best you can do for an
apology, then I grudingly accept it.  As to any reservations you may hold
in regards to Wilson's dismissal of Brodie, please substantiate your basis.
So far, all we know of your portfolio is that your are rath from Bradeis
University.

>
>>terms of Jefferson's will and the testimony of Hemings son Madison, there are
>>no grounds whatever for believing in what Brodie called the "private happiness"
>>enjoyed by Jefferson and Hemings.
>>
>>I think this states very clearly that the question is not did they do
>>something, but the question of "private happiness" and a long running
>>liaison.
>
>That is why I brought it up to the top from its position as a throwaway
>line buried in the middle of the last paragraph.
>>
>>>By shifting the focus over to Brodie instead of Jefferson and bashing a
>>>marginal argument decisively, the author of the excerpts
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>       As you and I are both full aware, you are not the author.
>That is why I wrote "of the excerpts" and not "of the post."

Gee, this is funny.  Douglas Wilson wrote an article for a magazine.
I excerpted the article and posted it.  Had I not, there would not have been
any excerpts.  You could therefore say I am the compiler of the excerpts, the
editor of the excerpts, even the author of the excerpts.  Given such
ambiguity, if it was Douglas Wilson you meant to accuse of misleading this
audience, you should have wrote "the author of the excerpted article."

>
>>>seems to discredit by association the whole argument.
>>
>>Look, dip-sh*t, I didn't propose anything.  I merely repeated a very
>>respected Jefferson scholar's writings on the Hemings question, and tried to
>>show his theory that what many accept as common knowledge, is dismissed by
>>those who study Jefferson for a living.  For instance this excerpt:
>>
>>"That is pure speculation.  Because Brodie's thesis deals in such unwarranted
>>assumptions, the great Jefferson biographer Dumas Malone regarded it as
>>'without historical foundation.'"

I don't see you stating any reservation to Malone's dismissal of Brodie?

>>
>>You want to argue with someone, argue with Wilson, or Malone for that
>>matter (is he even still alive?).
>>
>>>TJ's relations w/Sally Hemings, and whether or not they produced a child, are
>>>still discussedby scholars, and even "college teachers"--who might
>>>nonetheless be dismayed by Brodie's wor.
>>
>>Fine.  You can take it up with Wilson at Monticello at the conference.  And
>>if you'd read the f*ckin' article you'd realize that Wilson's whole point in
>>discussing the Brodie affair was the pervasive Presentism now afflicting
>>historical figures, in particular Jefferson.
>
>Thank you for your even-handed and scholarly summary of the article.
>Vocabulary and reading comprehension need work, though.

Well, here we are folks.  As you remember, rath complimented me on my
eloquently put statement of authorship of what.  Now he/she seeks to
admonish me as needing "Vocabulary and reading comprehension...work."

Again, who the f*ck are you?  Are you someone whose opinion I should respect?
Why?

So far you've voiced reservations to arguments by two known and respected
Jefferson scholars (Wilson and Malone) without providing substance to your
speculations.  You reoganize excerpts of an article that you've NEVER READ and
have the gall to call the original order of the excerpts misleading.  You
impute me of having ordered the excerpts to deliberately mislead
this forum, when you actually meant the original author. You've
provided dictionary definitions without identifying the source of your
definitions, so they may be checked for accuracy.  All of this simply the
heighth of arrogance and sloppiness, and then you want to say
[in a wee itty bitty kiddie voice] "vocabulary and reading comprehension
need work, though."  As Bobby D says: "You talkin' ta me?!  Huh?!  YOU
TALKIN' TA ME?!!"

>Unwarranted
>personal attacks are about par for
>the course--say, you don't drive in Boston do you?

You accuse me of editorial bias in my excerpting for dubious purposes, you
damn right I'll come after you.

And no I don't drive, haven't visited, have no wish to visit Boston.

____

"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
    Jefferson
Brian Douglass        [e-mail]     602-870-3330 X657