When I first saw the headline I was expecting him to have altered something more important than a Presidential pardon. I don't get it.
He was saying this may have been the last time Lincoln signed his name and that it was to grant mercy to boot.
When I first saw the headline I was expecting him to have altered something more important than a Presidential pardon. I don't get it.
prroh said:this may have been the last time Lincoln signed his name
I don't find that kind of "discovery" to be that exciting. Maybe it's just me.
You think Lowry has been framed?I don't believe a word of it. The alteration was crude and blatantly obvious. Who is pulling who's leg here?
Those that have the ability need to give us a suspect in the hot seat cartoon. I don't believe him.You think Lowry has been framed?
I guess I'm a cynic. If somebody suddenly came up with a document out of the archives that bore Lincoln's signature and such a date as that one, I'd be all over it looking for fakery. And this one might as well have been written in red ink.
When I first saw the headline I was expecting him to have altered something more important than a Presidential pardon. I don't get it.
People are strange, they have different motivations for research, "writing" and publishing.
I can tell you first hand, it is not that financially lucrative on an hourly basis. We are not
talking New York Times Bestsellers list here. So there is clearly some other motive here.
One is almost tempted to believe it was sloppy scholarship because this factoid is so easily
cross checked except nobody else had any reason to alter the document in question? I don't
buy the retracted confession because he was intimidated by the burly security guards. Take
the 5th and retain representation if you fear for your physical safety, but don't lie. Clearly one
story or the other is a lie now, so you know first and foremost you are dealing with a liar.
I wouldn't try to increase the scope of the transgression beyond what it was. His disgrace does
not extend to the rest of the historical research profession. However, there are a few more
revisionist historians out there breaking a light sweat at the thought of somebody taking the time
to check out their footnotes. Writers who start with a certain perspective first and then research material
that confirms their conclusions also distort the truth, and are just as bad in my view...just harder to
catch.[/QUOTE]
Craig is my hero
People are strange, they have different motivations for research, "writing" and publishing.
I can tell you first hand, it is not that financially lucrative on an hourly basis. We are not
talking New York Times Bestsellers list here. So there is clearly some other motive here.
One is almost tempted to believe it was sloppy scholarship because this factoid is so easily
cross checked except nobody else had any reason to alter the document in question? I don't
buy the retracted confession because he was intimidated by the burly security guards. Take
the 5th and retain representation if you fear for your physical safety, but don't lie. Clearly one
story or the other is a lie now, so you know first and foremost you are dealing with a liar.
I wouldn't try to increase the scope of the transgression beyond what it was. His disgrace does
not extend to the rest of the historical research profession. However, there are a few more
revisionist historians out there breaking a light sweat at the thought of somebody taking the time
to check out their footnotes. Writers who start with a certain perspective first and then research material
that confirms their conclusions also distort the truth, and are just as bad in my view...just harder to
catch.
What was the error?
I've turned into a big footnote-checker too, actually.
Ms Hale said:Ahh. Yeah, there's a couple of things I'd like to email Davis about too.
Now now, it would be off topic.Such as????