Nit Picker,

I don't know what your issue is with me, but I will say for the record that your last post sounds like you're on drugs. It is completely different than your previous posts.

I never said the letter shouldn't have been written. I said it should have been written better. Yes, there is a word limit in the HA. Why did Fitzgerald send a 1,000 (that may be an exaggeration, but Reporter posted the original letter somewhere on the board) word essay and allow the HA to edit it down? The path I advocate would favor writing the best 250 word letter possible, including every possible fact and refutation of Hanbury's statements BUT would have omitted the parting shots about "tripe" (or whatever the actual wording was), because that's wasted words! Use those words to make another point! If you want to backhand Hanbury, do it in a sophisticated manner, not by name-calling. Again, that's Hanbury's game. Call names. Make wild, unsubstantiated assertions.

I have never seen an academic article that begins or ends with "The works of X, Y, and Z (1945) are right-wing tripe." Why, then, do we lower ourselves to schoolyard yah-yahing?

Doubting Thomas wrote:

---

Sticks and Stones wrote: DT, that's all well and good. But aren't you the one who called Invictus a SmartAss? For someone like you who voices concern about emotions expressed on this board, that wasn't exactly a calm, cool, and collected thing for you to say.   I admit that I lost my cool when I called Invictus that. I admit I did wrong. I was frustrated that nobody took my statements at face value. I was aggravated at repeatedly being called a troll. I don't have a troll codebook to know what magic phrases to avoid. I am sorry that I called Invictus a SmartAss. He was making fun of me, but I'm used to that by now.

---

DT -- its OK. If Invictus is making fun of you you should consdier yourself a new member of the club . . .