You know, I’ve had a few days to absorb and contemplate that work.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, some don’t like it because it’s “too long;” some don’t like it because of the author.
I on the other hand would give it an “A,” due to the thoroughness and care the author took, to back up his contentions, and to explain the “background.”
The only thing that keeps it from being an “A+” is style, but style is subjective.
I think it’s an excellent work; I wish I could write something half as good about the Bostonian Drunkard.
Now, most people who see the Bostonian Drunkard, see him only shallowly, for what he is, a clown, and aren’t too interested in any in-depth examination and analysis (such as the grief I took—just kdding, P-J—when P-J posted my Freudian analysis of the Bostonian Drunkard).
And whether or not the Bostonian Drunkard wishes to believe this, there’s other people who just aren’t interested, aren’t interested at all, in the Bostonian Drunkard.
But for those serious scholars of the Bostonian Drunkard, this has to be the definitive work, and I strongly and enthusiastically suggest it as well worth the read and analysis, to those serious scholars.
He’s posted a Part 2, 3 and 4 up regarding Pitt.
He is very good with his research.
He also started 2 more blogs. One is going to take on Hillary’s guy Penn, called Pennochio. Click on “About Me” and his other blogs are listed at the bottom of page.