Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. and Rufus Choate
Today's frustrated historical reconstructionist is -- surprise -- Tom Woods. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I've posted excerts of his pithy remarks and my "mean and nasty" responses.
WOODS: "Thomas E Woods" brings up your blog and the entry on Blosser's site. I didn't bookmark it because I don't visit it much, because I already have a zillion bookmarks it takes 10 minutes to scroll through, and because I didn't realize I'd need to go back. Hello?”
Yes, Dr. Woods, if your bookmarks are unorganized and left in a shambles, it will take ten minutes to go through your zillion bookmarks. So if you in a hurry, you could search through the 7,571 posts the blog search returns for Thomas E. Woods. Going a page at a time, with ten to a page, is a much more efficient use of a Ph.D. than any other method you could have used to find the conversation you lost.
Not to mention there are other ways to keep informed such as automated notices via email of responses in threads.
WOODS: “[Y]ou oppose secession and believe in an unbreakable Union.”
Currently, there are no issues of ‘union’ or ‘succession’ for me to oppose or support. Just as I have no passions for dead men, I have no passions for dead issues.
WOODS: “And your weird quotations about him are from his political enemies.”
No, I used a single source. One that comes up at the library. I wrongly assumed you would know the specific source. I guess I overestimated your knowledge of 19th century history.
WOODS: “Why not find out what Daniel Webster or John C. Calhoun -- ideological opponents who nevertheless agreed Choate was an important thinker -- thought of him?”
No, I’d rather read Brown, “Life of Rufus Choate,” Neilson, “Memories of Rufus Choate,” Whipple, “Recollections of Eminent Men,” or Fuess, “Rufus Choate.” I’m sure a Ph.D. would agree that reading a variety of biographers would give a broad or even handed portrait of the pro-slaver, Rufus Choate. "His style is peculiar and characteristic, but hardly a model for imitation."
WOODS: “My work stands or falls on its merits.”
And, that is how is should be, Dr. Woods. But, if your ‘work’ targets a specific audience, has a catchy title … like … I don’t know… maybe… “The Politically Incorrect Guide” to something, you retain a publishing agent, get a few endorsements from talk radio hosts to your target audience, have your agent take a few reviewers to a nice business dinner or two… Well, you might do very well at selling ‘works.’ I believe ‘marketing’ is an acceptable study in college and no longer socially frowned upon as it once was.
WOODS: “I'm pursuing this because it's fun and you're so easily excitable.”
Is that what you told Jon Swift at http://jonswift.blogspot.com/? Seems I’m not the first excitable male friend you've made online. And, not the first time someone has found your ‘work,’ your manner, and your demeanor offensive.
See http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/01/politically-incorrect-guide-to.html for blogs and comments.
WOODS: "Thomas E Woods" brings up your blog and the entry on Blosser's site. I didn't bookmark it because I don't visit it much, because I already have a zillion bookmarks it takes 10 minutes to scroll through, and because I didn't realize I'd need to go back. Hello?”
Yes, Dr. Woods, if your bookmarks are unorganized and left in a shambles, it will take ten minutes to go through your zillion bookmarks. So if you in a hurry, you could search through the 7,571 posts the blog search returns for Thomas E. Woods. Going a page at a time, with ten to a page, is a much more efficient use of a Ph.D. than any other method you could have used to find the conversation you lost.
Not to mention there are other ways to keep informed such as automated notices via email of responses in threads.
WOODS: “[Y]ou oppose secession and believe in an unbreakable Union.”
Currently, there are no issues of ‘union’ or ‘succession’ for me to oppose or support. Just as I have no passions for dead men, I have no passions for dead issues.
WOODS: “And your weird quotations about him are from his political enemies.”
No, I used a single source. One that comes up at the library. I wrongly assumed you would know the specific source. I guess I overestimated your knowledge of 19th century history.
WOODS: “Why not find out what Daniel Webster or John C. Calhoun -- ideological opponents who nevertheless agreed Choate was an important thinker -- thought of him?”
No, I’d rather read Brown, “Life of Rufus Choate,” Neilson, “Memories of Rufus Choate,” Whipple, “Recollections of Eminent Men,” or Fuess, “Rufus Choate.” I’m sure a Ph.D. would agree that reading a variety of biographers would give a broad or even handed portrait of the pro-slaver, Rufus Choate. "His style is peculiar and characteristic, but hardly a model for imitation."
WOODS: “My work stands or falls on its merits.”
And, that is how is should be, Dr. Woods. But, if your ‘work’ targets a specific audience, has a catchy title … like … I don’t know… maybe… “The Politically Incorrect Guide” to something, you retain a publishing agent, get a few endorsements from talk radio hosts to your target audience, have your agent take a few reviewers to a nice business dinner or two… Well, you might do very well at selling ‘works.’ I believe ‘marketing’ is an acceptable study in college and no longer socially frowned upon as it once was.
WOODS: “I'm pursuing this because it's fun and you're so easily excitable.”
Is that what you told Jon Swift at http://jonswift.blogspot.com/? Seems I’m not the first excitable male friend you've made online. And, not the first time someone has found your ‘work,’ your manner, and your demeanor offensive.
See http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/01/politically-incorrect-guide-to.html for blogs and comments.
posted by Mike Parker | 9:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home