Jason Bourne wrote:Well I will have to think about it. I am not sure I am ready to be analyzed by you Wade. I believe though you are a good fellow and have good intent.
That is kind of you to say. Please know that the sentiment is mutual.
And, since my questions were more designed to assist you in analyzing yourself and what you had written, rather than me doing the analyzing, I am glad you reconsidered.
Jason Bourne wrote:
1) What is the intent behind your criticism? In other words, what do you hope to accomplish by posting the criticism here or whereever?
I am not sure I would even call them criticisms. I pasted facts and evidnences that the historical record was tampered with and asked defenders what they made of that and how it could be justified.
Whether it may rightly be considered as criticism or not, there must have been some purpose in your innitiating that thread and/or expectation you may have desired would come from innitiating that thread--whether it be to simply inform or be informed, broaden perspectives and understandings, affect change of the past or for the future, etc. etc. What purpose did you hope would be served? (I think I may have surmised you purpose. Please see my comments below to see if I was correct.)
2) If you were to apply the same criticism to your personal history, would you consider it to be balanced, reasonable, timely, and consequential. In other words, is it the kind of criticism that you would value and think workable in terms of your personal history?
I am not sure the comparison is applicable. But if I had one record and went out and put things in that I never said to make me look better then someone would be accurate in asking why I did this.
I can understand how that question may come to mind given the stated perception.
However, regarding questions about what you or your biographer may have written in your personal history, and why it may have been written, wouldn't you want to at least know: a) whether the questioners are in a position to ask (in other words, what is it to them, and do they know enough about your personal history and the practice of writing personal histories to raise reasonable, informed, and pertinent questions)? or, b) why the select questions are being asked--i.e. the purpose behind the select questions?, why certain particular instances were selected for questioning?, and why are they being asked at this particular time?, or, c) whether the questions were of sufficient importance to the questioner to warrant a response?, or, d) whether sufficient context was provided in order to make the questions and the responses meaningful (such as how relatively common among your entire personal history were the things being questioned?, what the historiographic practices were at the time that your personal history was written?, who specifically wrote the portion of your personal history in question?, etc. etc.), or, e) wouldn't you have reasonable expectations that the explanations you provided in answer to the questions would be accepted with minds that would be open to empathetic understanding?
3) Do you believe you conveyed the criticism in a respectful, kind, and empathetic way?
4) How did you leave the criticism? By this I mean did you pass the criticism along as if to say: "here is something you may find useful. Feel free to do with it what you think best."? Or, do you plan to monitor with patience the changes presumably suggested in the criticism?
I just posted and siad it troubled me and did anyone have anything that could help me understand how it is justifiable to edit events in such a way.
So, apparently, the intent behind your query wasn't so much to criticize (and thus, it may not be relevant to this thread), but rather to learn if there was justification for historical editing which would help ease your troubled mind.
As long as that is all you intended, and you were open to reasonable responses, then I can't see that as problematic--at least as far as your participation was concerned (other participants may have different motives in mind). Perhaps I will look in on the discussion to see for myself.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-