17 February 2013
I'm Not Sad, I'm Glad
Glad to tweak certain academics, that is. It's so easy these days.
Professor Brooks Simpson has taken a break from trolling Facebook long enough to write over 1100 words to say, among other things, that he usually ignores me. "as a rule I ignore certain blogs." Yeah, sure you do. We've heard that claim before.
And this from the guy who fancies himself the smartest person in the room. Of course, since the only other ones in his rooms are often screen shots from Facebook pages, he could be right.
Simpson also notes, in regards to what I posted, that "he can't be speaking about me", yet then challenges someone to "Please point to any comment in this blog saying . . . " - That's curious. First he says I can't be speaking about him, then assumes a defensive posture as if he's quite sure that I am, and spends much of his essay writing as if I was, in fact, writing about him. Do I sense some paranoia? Is he confused, or does he just like to fantasize about being at the center of the universe? So what's he so puckered about? Not quite sure unless his snipping tool is on the fritz and he can't cut and paste Facebook conversations into posts on his "academic" blog.
Then he writes this misleading statement:
"you can judge for yourself someone who assesses a book he hasn’t even read."
There's just one small problem with that statement. I did not "assess" the book. Please point out where I did. I simply quoted from someone who did read and assess it. Everything that I wrote specifically about the book's "value" was in quotes. Did Simpson's imaginary friends misinform him or is he just highlighting his own personal issues? Of course, we know Simpson has shown us all before that he sometimes struggles with reading comprehension. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and blame his misrepresentation of what I said on that "personal issue", rather than on any intent to mislead. I'm quite sure that he would never do that.
The rest of his red herrings and straw men aren't worth the time and effort it would take to respond. Besides, I'm sure he's got his snipping tool fixed by now has moved on and is, as I type this, on the prowl somewhere on Facebook. Watch for another intellectually stimulating post soon.
Understanding the tweak in my original post does require some basic knowledge of the current state of academia and the fact that American history has become, in the words of Eugene Genovese, "a plaything for canting ideologues." I assume my readers have that knowledge. Perhaps Professor Simpson hopes they don't.
Readers can read the two related posts and decide for themselves. Those informed and familiar with the points and issues about this topic, which I raised in the offending post, will get it. Those who wish to cling to their preferred narratives will not.
Update: Simpson makes this comment:
"In this case, another blogger highlighted the post in question. I thought it offered a good case study as to why I don’t give him the time of day. After all, I haven’t used his name. [I'm crushed] Having demonstrated why it’s a waste of time to deal with him. . ."
Notice how he seems to be going out of his way to say he doesn't read my blog. But as I already pointed out, he took the time to type over 1100 words about a post. That's a strange way to ignore something, isn't it? Perhaps he enjoys "wasting his time." He also keeps repeating that the only reason he read the post was because someone "waived the entry" in his face. Me think the lady doth protest too much.