Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: History Buffs (Waayyy off topic)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: History Buffs (Waayyy off topic)
Stan:
 
This has nothing to do with history, but with the way that we so easily swallow the bilge-water of advocacy groups who put up a piece of "science" which is then trumpeted by the media.
 
Jefferson's alleged fathering of those children is but one example of this. As I said before: I am not saying this didn't happen because I CAN'T say so. There is no WAY to prove it did NOT. I can tell you what I believe.
 
But in so doing, I'm labeled "ignorant," despite the fact that I give concrete reasons for why I believe the way I do.
 
To recap: A study put out by an advocacy group, which was not peer reviewed, appears to convict Thomas Jefferson of this deed, and everyone believes it. A peer-reviewed study, based on solid science, appears directly afterward, showing that there is no evidence that this was the case, and it is ignored.
 
Q.E.D. What more do I need to say?

I'm sorry that you don't like the facts, but the reality is what it is.  I also find it somewhat ironic that you, of all people, are defending the honor of the founder of the Democratic Party! 

 Stan, all you're doing is pointing right back to the original study that I contend was flawed, was not reviewed in accordance with accepted standards of scholarship, and is, in summary, yet another example of "junk science."

Now, I've given YOU a link to an alternate view, which EXPOSES the study and details a SEPARATE study, which WAS submitted for general review by other experts, which was put out there to find the TRUTH, and you ignored it. Why is that?

FWIW, it appears abundantly clear that the Monticello organization was out to drum up new "supporters." Directly after they published this stupid study--which served to garner publicity of the type they could NEVER have garnered otherwise--they got a bunch of Leftist celebrities on their "board." They seem to have served themselves well.

But they served the cause of truth poorly. Are you going to read the alternate view, and comment, or is it enough to believe what Tom Brokaw tells you?