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. 
  

13 comments:

Bob from Luray said...

Keep fighting the good fight, Richard.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Bob. I've never cared much for bullies.

Anonymous said...

I think your post backfired. They are tearing you up over there.

Anonymous said...

Man now they are trashing you on Facebook. Great publicity for your new book. NOT! Lesson learned huh?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon - oh yeah, they're really tearing me up, aren't they? It reads like a junior high school debate class. They're playing the typical game: "Please, PROVE water is wet." Once again, those familiar with the "history" of history understand what this is all about, while they want to distract with minutia. It's so typical. They know I'm right, which is why they read the blog, then go out of their way to say they don't. I should post the .edu IP's that routinely visit my blog some time.

Simpson has a reputation for this kind of exchange. He accuses me of not responding to his "allegations" while he fails to respond to mine: the fact that most of his post is based on two false assumptions:

1: That I "assessed" a book I didn't read.

2: That the post was about him.

Do I really want to waste time in a point on point debate with someone like this? I've tried that before.

If you think Simpson is clever, just go to an exchange we had here:

http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2009/10/wild-about-harry.html

The guy can't even follow a conversation. Even one of his defenders attempted to come to his rescue and save him further embarrassment in that post.

Moreover, Simpson said in his most recent post that he usually ignores my blog, yet he then says he keeps score about what I follow up on. How does he do both? It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone like that.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon - Facebook? I guess that means Simpson fixed his snipping tool. Now he can get back to real scholarly pursuits. Too funny.

Anonymous said...

You may think it funny, but he's the one on CSPAN and the History Channel and you are where?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon - I think its hilarious that a college professor with a PhD spends so much time posting screen shots from Facebook on his "academic" blog. Really?!?

If you want to know more about me, you can read my bio. I don't have time to indulge the lazy.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon - tsk, tsk, tsk. You obviously have something in common with Simpson. You struggle with reading comprehension or, perhaps, you didn't bother to read the blog rules for posting here.

Your comment is so typical of those who don't like their narrative challenged and can't handle facts. You default to the left's lowest common denominator and start accusing those with whom you disagree of begin racist.

For your information, I supported a black man for President (Alan Keyes) when Barack Obama was still highlighting passages in Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" and working as a "community organizer" in Chicago. Did you support Ambassador Keyes? I would also like to see Allen West run for President and would support him. Would you?

If you answered no to either of those questions, then applying your logic makes you a racist.

Your comment has been deleted and you've been banned.

Anonymous said...

It is now March, 2013 and there are still no reviews by *readers* at Amazon.com.

It would be helpful if the book offered the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon's website. Nonetheless, I also find it odd that the Civil War blogs have ignored this book.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon - the "look inside" feature sometimes takes a while to show up on new releases.

CW blogs ignore a lot of books, No big deal. Sales and reviews tell the story. The book really didn't break any new ground - it was never intended to. It's a narrative for a general audience and those types of books typically don't attract a lot of attention.