Yet that they do contain Lincoln references is not only unlikely considering their content (i.e. public health finance). It is also is blind and wholly unsubstantiated speculation on your part, making it inadmissable as evidence to this debate. Now, if you want to make a claim of certainty that they do contain Lincoln references you are free to do so. But that also means you will have the burden of proving that claim. In other words, be prepared to go to the library and check his books for Lincoln references or else your argument will persist in its baseless state.
I mean fetish as in a fixation. Dilorenzo is fixated on Lincoln.
Okay. Fixation is a better explanatory term than fetish, which was indisputably employed in the pejorative via your previous use. Now let's test how consistently you apply that determination. Do you consider Harry Jaffa to be fixated on Lincoln as well? How about James McPherson? Bruce Catton? How about Wlat?
Now, that may well be for economic reasons. He is trying to sell books. Wonder how many copies he's sold, by the way.
Don't know. It's currently ranked 7 thousand-something on Amazon, which is significantly higher than your average book and that's after being in print for a year. You can also probably find it if you go to your local barnes and noble as it was distributed on a national scale.
Whatever the case, you are again incorrectly labelling as ad hominem what is merely descriptive language.
Not at all. You repeatedly accused him of a "Lincoln fetish" in absence of any substantive response to his arguments and as your reason for failing to post a substantive response. Your use of the term was also clearly pejorative, making it an attack rather than an honest description. All of those acts qualify it as a by-the-book ad hominem under the definitions I posted previously.
17 for 17 is clearly the work of a man fixed on one subject.
And 17 editorials on Lincoln by the author of a widely circulated Lincoln biography is not at all unusual by any standard. In fact I would be surprised if a Lincoln biographer did NOT write other articles on Lincoln.
That's my point. Those books he coauthored are inadmissable. You tried to admit them. I successfully obliterated them. Whereas the many, many articles available online are wholly admissable and remain solid evidence to back MY claim. I see that you also acknowledge my correctness in using the term fetishist now that you understand that fetish and fixation are synonyms. Glad we cleared that up. Because it shows once and for all that my well chosen words aptly describe Thomas J. Dilorenzo. Wait until you discover that I was equally on target when I spoke of Dilorenzo's admirers. I think I said they were dupes.