[one2many]

We are moving in circles here. I'll concede, as I have already, some liberty on the part of DiLorenzo. But I will also offer that what I have seen here and at the DF website is, shall we say, contorted, at times.

However, I would like to read your initial piece attacking DiLorenzo. Is it at your website?

(btw Richard, the only reason I moved the quotation marks was my intention to make the passage read more clearly. I doubt anyone but you noticed and it didn't matter. And I certainly did not mean to mislead. Do not attempt your pedantry on me if you expect civilized discourse)

[rdf]

(btw Richard, the only reason I moved the quotation marks was my intention to make the passage read more clearly. I doubt anyone but you noticed and it didn't matter. And I certainly did not mean to mislead.

No offense meant ... I thought you were being a stickler for accurate quotation, and responded with a view to strict accuracy.

You can find the whole controversy at WND, searching under "quackenbush" Or you can go to www.declaration.net and find it under "news", going back to the first column in early February.

Regards,

Richard F.

[davidjquackenbush]

I don't know what you mean by conceding "some liberty." I claim he has substantially misrepresented his only pieces of evidence for his central claim about Lincoln's purpose in the '50's. This seems like more than "some liberty." He manufactures, by misrepresenting irrelevant texts, his central evidence for his key claim about Lincoln in the decade approaching the presidency. You have the texts in my previous post. Are you saying that he isn't lying or incompetent, but "taking some liberties?" What does this mean?

Column url's:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26440

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26519

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26530

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26572

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26610