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.
False. To date you have offered no credible reason as to why they should not be included - only wholly unsubstantiated and utterly inane speculation that they might say something about Lincoln, however unlikely their subject matter may make that.
The simple fact is that those books destroy your claim that he only writes about Lincoln. Since you cannot bring yourself to admit the clumsy haste in which you shot your mouth off by making that claim, you now grasp at straws in an attempt to exclude the material evidence that proves it wrong. Your little stunt is identified and exposed in the following terms.
Definition: Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".
I see that you also acknowledge my correctness in using the term fetishist
Not at all. It is used as a pejorative term to facilitate an ad hominem.
now that you understand that fetish and fixation are synonyms.
Only in the loosest sense are the synonyms. A key distinction remains though. The former is intentionally pejorative while the latter approaches some semblance of neutrality. Thus they are not interchangable for the purposes of this discussion.