Post by thegreyelf on Nov 12, 2011 10:22:54 GMT -6
So I was re-reading that series again and it struck me: while it's exceptionally informative, it's also one of the most biased and agenda-laden series of articles I've read. It's seriously like if Sarah Palin wrote a series of articles about why people hate Democrats.
The historical stuff - the stuff about what Sprague did with the property - is really good and useful. But the series could be VASTLY improved by the removal of the guy's pot shots at de Camp and Carter's writing. We get it; he's not a fan. But his criticisms are little more than insulting cheap shots, and coupling them with "I dare anyone to defend this crap" is a really poor cap to put on an argument. I get the sense that if one did try to defend it, it would be like trying to tell Al Franken that Republicans have had a good idea on occasion, or Rush Limbaugh that Tourette's Syndrome is a real illness.
Yes, that last one is an obscure reference...but it stands.
Last Edit: Nov 12, 2011 10:24:16 GMT -6 by thegreyelf