As for General Early's advance into the heights above Washington, that was pinned down only about two years ago. I suspect that What's-his-name is behind in his historical reading.
Of course, there IS the point that deleting General Early root and branch from the article would not change my a single gram the weight or accuracy of the arguments presented.
Cordially,
John / Billybob
P.S. No one "speaks" for me. We're all grownups. Each is responsible for his or her own statements, temperate, accurate, concise, or the opposite of all three.
On the topic of General Early's initial a quick trip to multiple sources such the 1969 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary or a copy of "Lee's Lieutants" firmly establishes his name to be Jubal A. Early. Thus, your attempt to make a colorful comment undercuts the entire premise of your work which I presume would be "Accuracy in Journalism".
On the topic of General Early's advance into the surveyed boundaries of Washington then or now, I would possibly extend you some poetic license as a reader and generally leave the details to the archealogical historians. Whether all readers would be as generous is a matter of speculation.
My primary interest in this particular thread is the deportment and demeanor exhibited in ordinary discourse by individuals with a (presumably) shared common interest.
The facts are fairly straightforward: You solicited feedback. You received an authoritive "heads up" from a poster unknown to you about a fundamental aspect of your column. For reasons unknown you elected to reply in a most ungracious manner.
Should the orginal posts directed to your attention have been prefaced with a cordial salutation? Absolutely. Should the two of you consequently endulge yourselves in a mutual namecalling spat as a result? Absolutely not. Should the Freeper Flying Monkey Squad be allowed to indulge in lynch mob behaviour about matters which they clearly do not understand or even care about? No. A resounding NO. ( A waste of bandwidth and all that sort of thing)
Your editorial is not directed solely to JhengisKhan ( I believe that is to whom you refer when you say "whats-his-name")
His comments accurately reflect the view of many people (who you presumably wish to persuade) that if you can not get details correct in print you are unlikely to know what you are about in general. Completely unfair, of course, but frequently the rule in these matters.
I would think it unwise to depend on any website as the final authority about anything.
Overall, I thought your efforts were yeomanlike and useful.
There is no need to eliminate General Early from your remarks (after all, you are a Southerner by grace of God) merely acknowledge and correct typos and inaccuracies-real or perceived.
I would comment on your post script but I do not understand to what you refer.
Please accept these observations in the spirit in which they are offered- that the principles of a Constitutional Republic prevail in the free marketplace of ideas.
Best regards,