Replies

Here is what DiLorenzo says:

"In virtually every one of the Lincoln Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it."

This is false.

He may be a fool, he may be a liar, he may have personal problems ... whatever.

He does not declare, in a published book, the truth.

And this is one of dozens of such cases.

Face it.

Cheers,

Richard F.

Here is what DiLorenzo says: "In virtually every one of the Lincoln Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it." This is false.

As I have already conceded, it is an overstatement with an element truth behind it. It is not absolutely false as you assert, but simply overstated. In that case, it is a legitimate point to address, but not with a similarly illegitimate overstatement of your own or anothers - namely the assertion that "not a word" was said about anything related to the bank issue.

He does not declare, in a published book, the truth.

A single hyperbole does not discredit an entire book, especially when the majority of the overstatement was extended in an editorial external to the book.

And this is one of dozens of such cases.

I again ask, if that is so, why then do you not produce evidence of these "dozens of cases" you speak of?

After noting that your entire argument seems to revolve around a hypertechnical and downright petty overexamination of 4-5 disputes with the book's text, I asked you this same question earlier. I asked you to provide further examples. Your first attempt at doing so revealed you were grasping at straws.

Your additional examples quickly became significantly weaker than the already questionable presentations you have given on those 4-5 complaints around which you obsess. Many of them broke out of the realm of factual disputes and into DiLorenzo's disagreements with your own editorial beliefs. So if you know of these "dozens" of factual errors, you certainly aren't conveying their specifics very well. I will again give you a chance to do so, though I do not hold my hopes up very high.

Face it.

Why should I have to face a disputed assertion that you yourself have failed to demonstrate despite multiple invitations for you to do so?