Posted: Aug 12, 2012 11:45 am
Barton's mouthpiece, Rick Green, has issued a deliciously over the top response to the publisher's decision, going straight for the Godwin:
Umm, actually in this context it does mean the same thing.
He also issues a challenge:
Well, that certainly seems fair.
Blogger Chris Rodda has been as instrumental as anyone in debunking the claims of Barton's book, and so has accepted Green's invitation and sent this message:
Green has refused to post this statement, and here is his "explanation":
Rodda has since sent a second message, but I think we all know how this is going to go from here: Green is going to use the convenient loophole he has provided himself, and simply say he didn't have time to respond to it.
The title of Rodda's book, BTW, is Liars for Jesus. I think she knows what she is talking about.
Question: What do elitist professors have in common with Adolf Hitler & Saul Alinsky?
Answer: They masterfully use the powerful art of innuendo to falsely defame those with which they disagree.
Definition of Innuendo: A derogatory hint or reference to a person or thing.
The internet is abuzz today with leftwing bloggers, elitist professors, and downright jealous peers licking their chops and rubbing their hands in excitement as they repeat the juicy quotes about David Barton books being full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”
Yet not a single article can point to a single factual error, quote out of context, or misleading claim.
How ‘bout that.
These articles are all celebrating the fact that Thomas Nelson is pulling “The Jefferson Lies” because “…there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.”
Does “not adequately supported” mean the same as “not supported?”
Of course not!
Umm, actually in this context it does mean the same thing.
He also issues a challenge:
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for someone to show me a specific inaccuracy or false claim by Barton. Every author, including these elitists, makes mistakes and we could do several more blogs about the hilarious publishing mistakes by some of the most respected authors in history. (quick read here for some famous ones) That’s not what I’m talking about and that’s not what these critics are claiming. They are claiming that Barton is purposefully presenting a false picture of history and using inaccuracies and distortions to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is these critics who are using inaccuracies, innuendo, and distortions to attack Barton in the first place.
If you can show me specifics that back up the image created by the critics innuendo, I’ll post it right here for the world to see.
Well, that certainly seems fair.
Blogger Chris Rodda has been as instrumental as anyone in debunking the claims of Barton's book, and so has accepted Green's invitation and sent this message:
Green has refused to post this statement, and here is his "explanation":
I’m still looking for specific examples. I’m not going to post ridiculous, unrelated, illogical ramblings, but I will gladly post legitimate questions of research or challenges to any point made in the Jefferson book. I know I will not have time to respond to every single one, but will do my best.
Rodda has since sent a second message, but I think we all know how this is going to go from here: Green is going to use the convenient loophole he has provided himself, and simply say he didn't have time to respond to it.
The title of Rodda's book, BTW, is Liars for Jesus. I think she knows what she is talking about.