Art Downs once walked into a death trap against Unstoppable Isotope a few months ago when it came to chemistry. Countless others have walked into my tazer of torridness.
David Anderson did the same thing against Steve Newton last week. And, in typical David Anderson (a professed damner of fornicators) he tries to Hannity his way out of his own words. Apparently, Newton has a passion besides writing extremely long and detailed posts:
in my professional life what I am is a military historian–especially a World War Two military historian. So what Pat Buchanan is doing is not only offensive to me in political terms, it drives me absolutely goat-f**king nuts to have somebody like David, who has no idea what he’s talking about pontificate about Buchanan’s integrity as a scholar.
That’s not good enough for David (miliary non historian) Anderson:
David said…
I don’t agree with you. You are mischaracterizing my statement. You said that Buchanan plagiarized when he did not. You now admit that he did in fact document his statements even though you disagree with his conclusions. In the same comment, I agreed with interpretation of the war. I just disagreed with your attack on Buchanan’s intergrity.
“I don’t agree with you” You see I’m a bible totting non sodomite and well, very well versed in the art of bullshittery. I’m so good at my craft I believe 100% of what I write.
Here is the beginning of the smack down, but you have to read the rest of the post because he really swats David A like the slow, big winged dirty fly you find in a moldy, urine laden gas station bathroom at the Red Rose Motel. When you are wrong you can do one of two things, ignore the person calling out your bullshit or be a real man and admit it. David A isn’t a real man and like a 10 year old arguing history with a historian is unable to see he is out witted.
David Anderson wrote when I challenged Pat Buchanan’s The Unnecessary War as a shoddy rip-off of AJP Taylor’s The Origins of World War Two:
His book is fine piece of scholarship in that it is meticulously sourced.
The problem is that just because somebody cites a source, doesn’t mean that the source says what they imply it does. If it is difficult to get people to click through on links on the internet, just think about how difficult it is to get people to go look up specialized books in the library
A fine piece of scholarship. I can hardly stop laughing. that is meticulously sourced. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, oh dear lord. You almost forget David was Bible in hand at Dover lamenting about ‘deh gays.