David, people, including those with an ax to grind, make all sorts of supposedly factual assertions, which can be difficult to disprove.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Shemano, David B. <[email protected] > wrote: > So the issue is not that anyone has ever disproved a Conquest factual > assertion, but instead that Conquest's evidence for a specific assertion is > allegedly weak. I suppose that is always a challenge for a historian -- > drawing conclusions from incomplete information, and we all have a > subjective standard of proof based upon the issue at hand. For some, there > will never be enough proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. But a key reason why > Oswald is assumed to be the killer is not that the evidence for Oswald is > necessarily conclusive, but that the evidence for every other alternative > is much weaker. So, give me an example of a factual assertion by Conquest > for which there is contrary evidence that is now universally recognized (by > professional historians) as more compelling. > > David Shemano > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 5:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Teen Who Exposed a Professor's Myth > > David Shemano wrote: "What factual assertions by Conquest have been > factually disproved?" > > Of course, one need not factually disprove an assertion by Conquest, if > your question implies anything more than demonstrating that Conquest did > not establish as fact many of his factual assertions. For that, there are > too many to list here. For a start with plenty of references, see > http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/08/05/grover-furr-on-robert-conquest/ > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > ____________________________________________________ > > Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, > confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 > U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. > > If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or > reproduce this transmission. > > If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us > immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from > your system. > > Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal > Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including > any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for > purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue > Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any > tax-related matter. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Robins Kaplan LLP > http://www.robinskaplan.com > ____________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
