Replies

What Miss Price writes in the L.A. Times piece in reference to my comment:

But "Ghengis (Alexander was a wuss!)" surmised that David and I had different fathers because that was so "common in California in the '60s."

What was in the thread and my response

Plutarch's comment: Well, I've been looking. I haven't been able to find an obituary on the death of the 33 year old David Price above. David Price was born in 1968, Jennifer Price, according to this article in the Princeton Alumni magazine, was 38 in 1999, and thus likely born in 1961. The seven years difference is somewhat distant for siblings but certainly plausible.

My response: With the difference in their ages, possibly David and Jennifer were the products of two different marriages. With two different fathers.

That was more common in California in the '60s than in most other places.

Seven years difference in age, different last names of siblings and believed to have grown up in California (a state that glamorized divorces for the rest of the nation in the '60s). Seemed like a reasonable thought to me.

I find it very telling that, in one of her more innocuous Free Republic quotes (mine), she is still unable to to accurately convey what was stated.

In speaking to the possibility of a fractured family explaining different last names,

I said:
That was more common in California in the '60s than in most other places.
She said:
But "Ghengis (Alexander was a wuss!)" surmised that David and I had different fathers because that was so "common in California in the '60s."

She did properly place a portion of my comments in quotes, but her insertion of "so" instead of how I phrased the sentence changes the meaning significantly.

I would expect a "Research Scholar" to be more likely to use statistics rather than twist the meaning of other's words and changing the context. Unless of course she is speaking purely with emotion and promoting an agenda. An agenda that can not be supported without inserting emotion over facts, citing the ability to use statistics that she does not use and changing the meaning of other's words when arguing her point.

And don't even get me started on the cynicism towards her original story. Not after so many fabricated "news" items and photos of the last several years.