marlinguy wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 9:30am:


Your viciousness is no surprise; it's your calling-card.  Who with an interest in Stevens history would not wish to learn the contents of this 1942 document, whatever it is, & how else to obtain it but through the (only) individual who reported it?    

Here is what I previously said:  Redsetter wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 10:46pm:


Now who among you will agree with Mr. Spitefulness that the above statement constitutes a denial of anything?  And who among you with genuine historical curiosity would not wish to get to the bottom of how the events in question were first reported?   

marlinguy wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 10:36am:


Wrong about believing that it's always good to have as much documentary evidence about an historical event as it's possible to obtain?  That, in fact, there's no such thing as "too much" evidence?  No, I'm NOT wrong about that, & challenge you to find ANY professional historian who agrees with you, not me. Who else here agrees that it's "wrong" to continue searching for information not previously made public?  Please speak up.

Not one iota of evidence, not one previous statement of mine, exists to support Mr. Spitefulness' assertion of an "attempt to deny it happened."  Is "never said it was a myth" beyond the comprehension of anyone else here?

marlinguy wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 11:44am:


Your lies. Characterizing a search to find definitive evidence as "disbelief" demonstrates the superficiality of your thinking. Such an attitude on the part of professional historians would mean that all research on subjects & events previously written about would come to an end; instead, events that have already been researched intensely & made the subjects of countless good books continue to be examined by subsequent historians; it's the way historiography is supposed to work.

All the "trouble" that would have been required of Grant & the others is identification of their original sources--briefly disclosing how they knew what they knew.  Who else believes that to be an unreasonable burden on the part of the writer?

JLouis wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 1:01pm:


The investigation should certainly be there, but in all honesty information on that is not all that easy to find either. Knowing the name or number or even date of the report would be very helpful.

Everyone seems to know it happened, but I have not really seen a reference to an actual document.

marlinguy wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 1:31pm:


I was speaking more of information on the investigation itself, those references are lacking. If you can narrow down the investigation time, I think 1922, you could have a start.

To add to the confusion, one reference I found indicated the records did not burn, they were mostly water damaged. That would indicate a bigger fire.

I will try to post a link to that later.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

II. Thou shalt avoid self-conscious discussion of thy intended purposes, thy strategy, thy sources, and thy research methodology.

Draw your reader’s attention to the points you are making, not to yourself and all the misery and sweat of your process of research and writing. Keep the focus on what you have to say, not on the question of how you hope to develop and say it. Do not parade around in your mental underwear. Show only the well-pressed and well-shined final product.

Avoid self-conscious-sounding phrases such as: “now let us turn to”; “I will demonstrate that”; “now we see that”; even “I think that”, or (even worse) “I feel that”.

Avoid use of first person.

If you must discuss methodology, do it in a preface; discussing sources is fine, but in a bibliographical essay.

Phrases that tell your reader explicitly what you intend to do or to do next, or that tell explicitly where to see emphasis, are crutches. They indicate weaknesses in your paper’s implicit development and emphasis.

The above does not mean that you offer the reader no cues and clues. Yes, it is important, in the opening paragraph or two of a paper or a section, to lay out the essential question(s) you will address and often to hint at the answers you may find. But do it artistically, not with a heavy hand.

In the cases of historiographical papers and book reviews you may of course discuss sources. Those cases are exceptions. There may be other exceptions.

marlinguy wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 1:31pm:


A "precise date" makes the search much easier of course, but an approximate date is close enough if you're willing to sit for hours, or if necessary, days (as I have on numerous occasions) hunched over a microfilm reader (one, usually, that you can expect to break down or overheat every few minutes.)  If these newspapers have been preserved, it will be on microfilm or microfiche, unless those records have more recently been transferred to some other media--a very expensive process.