When you first posted you didn't have any evidence. You said Guelzo couldn't know what Lincoln had read. Since we know what Adams and Jefferson read, it wasn't on the face of things absurd that we might know what Lincoln read -- and indeed we do have that list of titles in the article by Robert Bray that you mentioned. So we do have a pretty good idea of what books may have passed through Lincoln's hands.
In that first post you proceeded to string together quotes about Lincoln on slavery as though that were some kind of rebuttal of Guelzo's article. You didn't deal with Lincoln's economic ideas until post #141, so I was right to note in post #60 that you hadn't and to respond to your weak and silly rants. When you brought out actual evidence that Guelzo had overstated Lincoln's interest in political economy (it looks like somebody helped you there), I said that you had a point. That was already almost a month ago, but you just couldn't let it go at that.
Certainly, Guelzo oversells his case. But nobody can really deny that economic development was a high priority for Lincoln. Look at the references to banking, tariffs, patents, and internal improvement in his early speeches. You were wrong when you denied that in your earlier post, and I simply pointed that out. When you say now that there is no reliable proof that Lincoln "had any documented interest in political economics" you revert to your earlier, erroneous assumptions (probably just to confuse things and stretch out the discussion).
But Guelzo did go too far. He tried to make Lincoln out to be more of an economic thinker than he actually was, a deeper student of the economic writings of his time than the available evidence warrants. He was indeed wrong to do so, and you pointed that out. Guelzo apparently misread a passage that he had quoted correctly in his earlier work and ended up creating a false impression. I wouldn't assume that this was intentional or that it negates his earlier work.
You could write him (nicely, without the prosecutorial zeal) and see what he says. Let him know that people read his articles and check out his assertions. He might appreciate it or he might not, but even if he doesn't he might learn a lesson anyway. So long as you don't sound like you want him dismembered with his head on a platter.
So that's how things stand. I don't know why you keep coming back week after week, expecting me to abase myself before you, when the world moves on. If you want your little victory, you have it. Congratulations. But coming back to it every few days to thrash things out again makes you look petty and more than a little twisted.
So far as I'm concerned this discussion is over, but I suppose you'll want to have the last word and fling a few stupid insults my way.
You say that with such a self-righteous tone, then you 'threw' 12 insults at me in your last posting, I had rather be 'petty' (in your understanding) by highlighting the truth, rather than wear the mantle of arrogance and unnecessary personal attacks:
"Certainly, Guelzo oversells his case. ...But Guelzo did go too far. He tried to make Lincoln out to be more of an economic thinker than he actually was, a deeper student of the economic writings of his time than the available evidence warrants. He was indeed wrong to do so, and you pointed that out.
You finally offer the truth, but not being able to quite assume rational acceptance, you offer a contrived rationalization, for which you have no proof...just your opinion again.
Guelzo apparently misread a passage that he had quoted correctly in his earlier work and ended up creating a false impression. I wouldn't assume that this was intentional or that it negates his earlier work."
My entire effort here has been to point out the intentional effort on his part to misrepresent Lincoln, but you seem to the type person that believes that anyone who is published, commercially or on blogs, automatically has credibility. That is an argument that does not seem to be open to facts...your thinking is much too rigid.
And what is this Doris thing that preoccupies you?