[davidjquackenbush]

I don't know what you mean by conceding "some liberty." I claim he has substantially misrepresented his only pieces of evidence for his central claim about Lincoln's purpose in the '50's. This seems like more than "some liberty." He manufactures, by misrepresenting irrelevant texts, his central evidence for his key claim about Lincoln in the decade approaching the presidency. You have the texts in my previous post. Are you saying that he isn't lying or incompetent, but "taking some liberties?" What does this mean?

Column url's:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26440

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26519

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26530

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26572

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26610

[one2many]

OK I went back through the list of URLs at post #171 and found what I thought I had remembered. What I find here is a vicious ad hominem attack on your part on both Ilana Mercer and Thomas DiLorenzo. I assume your reason for immediately and without provocation lowering yourself to this discredited method of "debate" is that Mercer and DiLorenzo had attacked your sacred cow, Ape Linkum.

What Mercer said in her article was essentially correct and she never once mentioned you, Mr. Ferrier, or the "Declaration Foundation" (sic).

So let's keep this little talk we are having perfectly understandable for the audience (those reading the thread). Exactly what justified, in your mind, your condescending ad hominem attacks on Mercer and DiLorenzo?