To which Lars responded:
All right, Lars, why don't you come here and defend yourself? Answer what you think are the serious arguments and evidence."As I said in my pinned comment, "disrespectful comments will be removed." Mr. Vogel can exercise his free speech however he wants on his own sites, but he has to play by the minimum standards of the host when he is a guest. Mr. Vogel is now free to post his disrespectful, original comment on his own sites (which he may or may not alter). He started off saying that I was "deadly dull" and "excruciatingly slow," showing "little discipline," and exposing my "naiveté." As I said in my pinned comment, "arguments are the most helpful to me and to the community." Mr. Vogel's comments do not rise to my minimum standard and certainly do not exhibit the timbre of "a serious historian," as he presents himself, which is unfortunate. Moreover, when Mr. Vogel is not disrespectful, he continues to mischaracterize my arguments in many online forums. I have concluded that he is not acting in "good faith," but in a way that resembles the apologist. I hope that Mr. Vogel will improve his behavior going forward."
I have already responded to his attempt to reprimand me for my tone, which is no worse than what he said about me in his video. He doesn't need to worry about me changing anything, because I have already posted the parts he quoted. One way to make me look bad is to release my comments and engage me. Here's me responding to his complaint in Part 1:
Here's Nielsen being disrespectful to me first:Finally, you accuse me of being unprofessional because my review of your book used direct and critical language, while you do the same. I won’t whine about it. You pretend that your critical tone is isolated to a side bar and that your response is strictly professional and dispassionate, but it wasn’t. Give me a break. I think you need to listen to yourself more carefully. I don’t think you hear yourself the way your audience does. I know you try to be precise, logical, and “dispassionate,” but you should learn that this is only a caricature of scholarship and that it’s not really possible to “check your biases at the door.” That you think this is possible, especially in an exchange of competing ideas, only shows your naiveté.
So, Lars, there is no need to pretend you are on higher ground.“Mr. Vogel seems to deliberately mischaracterize my work”; “I hope this video will help Mr. Vogel recognize where he himself is and decide for himself what kind of a critic he wants to be”; “if the truth is on Mr. Vogel’s side, he shouldn’t have to mischaracterize”; “This one figure alone should be enough to cause all of Mr. Vogel’s subscribers to seriously re-evaluate their relationship with him”; “Vogel as less of a serious historian and more of a sole-authorship apologist.”
So come debate me here, Lars.
