Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly
I am not defending him. This is a civil case and everyone one is makeing it out to be a criminal case. I am just defending his right to write and artical no more no less. If you dont want to belive what he writes fine.  |
I don't thnk it is an all or nothing proposition in believing what he writes or not. He clearly does a lot of research and he regularly presents readily-varifiable facts.
What is pertinent about his past history of fraudulant behavior is that his writings need to be read more critically. Case in point:
When speaking here about a questionable Ruth baseball (I think it was that, one of the longer threads in the last year), a well-respected poster on these boards posted that he had spoken to several people who didn't think the ball was genuine. I have absolutely no reason to question this person, and his stellar reputation led me to take him at his word.
On the other hand, when Nash writes that "experts" share an opinion that something is or is not genuine, he does not get the benefit of that doubt from me. Travis can say I'm protecting the status quo all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that Nash has lost the right (in my eyes) to make sweeping and anonymous generalizations.
That being said, I hope he continues and takes steps to tighten up his writing and use of sources (and drops the needless, unrelated bashing in his posts). I will keep reading, that's for sure.