rcrocket wrote:Not thinking the quote was misleading, nor commenting that it was misleading, Bagley didn't mention it. He had the entire letter and my quote.
Bagley missed it; we didn't. Either way, your game is up.
The "case" is the client's file that one takes to court; it involves everything outside the lawyer's personal purview.
You are certainly free to re-define language to suit your argument.
At least I don't use ellipses to mislead the original statement.
One of Lee's biographers, Samuel Nyal Henrie, who did not have the benefit of the Huntington letter, argues that Lee's confessions were tampered with because it contains facts Lee could not have possibly have known.
That could have been Lee (perhaps using hearsay from another who did know).
I am the first historian to have found the Huntington letter and used it to call into question the integrity of the Confessions, and Bagley has conceded to me that it is a letter he might have wanted to address.
Congratulations, but whatever "first" you accomplished was undone by your manipulating the letter to say something other than it did.
Had I included the material, it would have made my argument marginally stronger.
Nope. Had you put the jettisoned words back it, it would have decimated your argument; hence, the reason you kept them out.
I really think that is not necessary to ask FARMS for a retraction; particularly since my article has undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts. Flaws have been found (two typos on dates, for example; a typo on "first" when "second" should have been used, and things like that).
I don't care about the typos (although you sure make a big deal about them here); I care about your blatant manipulation of a quote to say something that was never intended.
Not a one -- not one -- has identified the supposed flaw you rely upon to charge me with professional dishonesty and, in Scratch's case, grounds for a reason to contact my stake president.
I could care less about contacting your SP, but I think this was (and remains) a major defect in your article.
Anonymously, I might add.
One-note wonder Bob strikes again!
Beating up on living people with reputations to defend behind the essential equivalence of a hooded mask.
One-note wonder Bob strikes again!