the Blog Police

I received this comment from a Chris Bell, who writes at the blog NZBC. It is in response to my post, Winston Churchill 1899.

Niether politically nor otherwise correct, since you neglect to mention that this quote was edited out of 'The River Wars' by Churchill himself, over 100 years ago. You will find the full story here:

http://www.nzbc.net.nz/2005/07/everyone-is-someone-elses-infidel-1.html
http://www.nzbc.net.nz/2005/08/everyone-is-someone-elses-infidel-2.html

Bloggers who choose to ignore this fact are guilty of something equally as bad as the suppression of free speech: namely, the distribution of misleading information.

I've spent too much of my morning reading his posts and trying to address his comments. I finally sent this response:

Dear Chris Bell,

Not correct? Ignoring facts? Guilty of distributing misleading information? I beg your pardon, but the TITLE of my post was Winston Churchill 1899. The second paragraph of my post, which is the first paragraph of the quote from Mark Steyn, says quite clearly:

In River War (1899), Winston Churchill's account of the Sudanese campaign, there's a memorable passage which I reproduce here..

Furthermore, the fact that I wrote at the end of the post, "Readers will note that 1899 was over a hundred years ago..." serves to re-emphasize the source, previously mentioned in both the title and in the text.

What do want from my life?! Readers are free to follow the links I furnish, to read other blogs and other sources, and to do their own research. They are free (thank Gd) to think and behave responsibly. or not.

There is absolutely no question that Winston Churchill wrote what I said he wrote. I quoted his words with adequate reference to the source (especially given that I am writing for a blog, not an academic journal of historical literary research).

Given that I supplied reference to my sources, I resent your accusation that I distribute misleading information. Frankly, I don't see the relevance of your finding that these few sentences were among two (or seven) chapters that were edited out in later editions of the book. We may never know why those particular chapters got the axe. Maybe Churchill regretted the indiscretion of his description of Islamic culture, maybe not. I don't really care one way or the other.

There is no question that I used the quote to further my political agenda, which is to awaken my readers to what I see as an Islamic and fascist threat to our civilization. The Churchill quote was used to illustrate some of the history of that threat.

There is also no question that your political agenda is equally evident (quoting Frank Zappa is a dead giveaway), is opposed to my own, and is driving your preference for the distribution of Churchill's "argument that we shouldn't attack the religion of native subjects."

The difference is that you're trying to enforce your agenda all over the blogosphere, while I keep my agenda within the confines of my own blog, where it belongs.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Now bugger off.

Anne Lieberman

I should've added a postscript explaining that I'm in a really bad mood because of the remarks of some "people," who by their own admission thirst for my blood. See the very next post down.

Comments

[Chris Bell]

>I finally sent this response: Sent it where? Not to me at the address I provided. > Readers are free to ... their own research That's what I did, unlike you. But it seems you don't approve when it conflicts with your own excuse for research: > Now bugger off. > quoting Frank Zappa is a dead giveaway That's generally the idea when you quote someone.