I have found your link, but I would not characterize it as "mealy-mouthed." And I don't understand how you can do so. Barton sought to raise the academic standard, not weasel out of a position previously held.
I gave you a link to it.
My next entry will give you some links to his web site were he explains his rationale.
Thank-you, but I already have those links. Which explains why I was able to give them to you.
I have found your link, but I would not characterize it as "mealy-mouthed."
Again, I gave you a link to it. Point, click. Why is this so difficult?
Barton sought to raise the academic standard, not weasel out of a position previously held.
I don't know. I just don't view it as "raising the academic standard" when you concede that your prior "scholarship" was bogus, and do so only after others have pointed out its marked deficiencies.
You are seeking to besmirch the reputation of a man that I know to be of the highest integrity. And his work has been shown to be of the highest quality.
His work has been shown to be shoddy at best.
So as I asked above, please send me links to these alleged "refutation" articles, and I will consider them.
Right. Consider, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And please note that additional links are embedded within these links.
I'm sure you will find the critiques of Mr. Barton's scholarship unsatisfactory, but note that it was in direct response to these critiques that Mr. Barton belatedly decided that revision of his previous historical revisionism was necessary. And you will also note that Mr. Barton has only partially addressed the issues raised in these critiques.