[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It's common to get slammed on here for liking anything hos has on their site. they jump on you for being a pal or buddy or whatever of hos or nash, this is to deflect from the stories he's uncovered, stories you won't find in the hobby publications, the stories they don't dare run. Trying to paint someone guilty by association or trying to embarrass someone to stop information or criticism from getting out is deplorable and a version of that is what they did in the 1950's on a much bigger scale and you know what it was called. It is practiced with one of its goals to stop or restrict dissent/criticism.

If someone doesn't like hos or nash, fine, no problem, but to point to others and say you can't read, believe, enjoy, or agree with what is posted less you be the "bad guy" is ridiculous and it should stop. I disagree with several on this board, but never tell them they can't be acquaintances or friends with whoever they want, i never tell them shouldn't believe whatever they want, I only tell them when I believe they are wrong or disagree with their opinion. But hos touches a nerve so you get the firing squad every time you mention them.

What I don't understand is if people have a problem with what HOS writes, simply rebut and provide your argument against what he writes if what he is writing is incorrect. When I call out a boxing autograph and say that abc or xyz wrongly authenticated something, I provide proof, show side by side and dissect, analyze the differences to prove my point, but I don't see anti-hos people doing that. It is always shoot the messenger.

Travis, do you refute the White Betsy columns? They were laid out very convincingly with proof.

Ken