House of Eratosthenes

I’m not in it. I’m not in search of the perfect candidate who will say no to war all the time, I don’t think the United States can just wake up one morning, vote in the right guy, and drive war permanently off the planet. But, young voters like this one are just starting to figure that out.

It’s a bit regrettable that they believe in some kind of fight between good and evil inland, and then it seems once we’re talking about overseas situations with the prospect of war emerging, evil suddenly vanishes and anyone who makes an issue out of it must be some kind of “warmonger.” That dog won’t hunt. Evil exists, and it’s always been exceptionally talented at convincing the casual observer it doesn’t.

But she’s figured out how Obama’s snookered her generation. Vote for the magic-man, shed your tears of exuberance and happiness on 11/5/08, help end war and stick it to these evil corporations. She’s figured out the downside of voting friends into power and enemies out of power; that government works according to the interests of politicians, by its nature, and you can’t have it working for you unless you’re a politician. She’s beginning to understand that people who aren’t politicians need to keep government small. It’s on us. The politicians aren’t going to say “Okay that’s it, we’re interfering in their lives enough.”

The way these youngsters see it, though, is not like that. They say “not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” And then, while I can’t pretend to speak for this shirt-burner lady, I’ve noticed many among them are all-on-board when the time comes to consider the next tax increase. They want to stick it to those evil corporations.

I’ve got a friend like that on Facebook. He’s not as articulate as she is, nor is he as pleasing to the eye. But I’ve asked him about this, a few times, this credo of “politicians are all out to get us, bunch of lying scumbags, so let’s raise taxes and give them more money.” He just rambles a bit about how terrible George Bush was, and goes right back to it.

I think they’re all like that. THAT is a problem. They get disappointed, as the years go by, again and again and again. Their problem is that they see the divide as being between the young cool hip types who are against war, and the old fuddy-duddies who want to ban their music and think war is some kind of awesome.

The people who see the fissure as between inside- and outside-the-beltway, on the other hand, aren’t forced to retreat from a cul de sac of any sort. They’re forced to look on sadly as their fellow citizens make regrettable decisions, but they’re not forced to re-think things. George Washington had it right. That’s why her words at the end…well, some of them…are so encouraging.

Update: Morgan got sloppy with the cites this morning. Found the video here.

Sadly, $1000 says this seemingly wised-up little honey can’t wait to pull the lever for Hillary! in 2016. Because #WarOnWomen or something.
- Severian | 03/15/2014 @ 11:51
If not Hillary, some socialist candidate of the far left, no doubt. She’s painfully dim, which only makes it more excruciating to contemplate that she’s smarter than all the people still carrying water for Obama.
- cloudbuster | 03/15/2014 @ 15:19
Greig? Really?

At such a tender age I wonder where such a precious snowflake learned reasoned hatred for Bush?
I wonder where she got the subsequent script/vocabulary for her closing soliloquy?
I wonder how she’s going to like “others” controlling her “internet experience”?
I’ll take the even odds line on: Americas Most Valuable Treasures of at least THIS cognitive transition stage
will, find a nice, harmlessly productive, niche SOMEWHERE in society, after five more years outside the confines of meticulously groomed back yard.

I could be wrong.
- CaptDMO | 03/16/2014 @ 04:27
mkfreeberg: George Washington had it right.

The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said. The quote is spurious.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 05:52
Get back to me when it’s debunked, then. Point is, it’s right.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 08:14
mkfreeberg: Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.

If it can’t be disproven, therefore it’s true? That’s exceptionally funny.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 08:26
Not what I said.

Y’all (you) seek to do some debunking…so, when you have some debunking to do, let me know.

Speaking of debunking, who ever told you this didn’t “sound like anything Washington would have said”?
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 08:31
So is that their thing now? The jump in a thread with some nonsense, double down on that nonsense until they’ve locked themselves into an infinite recursion of stupid, and then jump into a new one? With the goal, presumably, of making every experience of coming to this site mind-numbingly tedious?

If so, please ban these fuckheads so the adults can talk.

If not — if there’s, shall we say, a different motivation– then for pete’s sake, Cuttlefish, there are much easier ways to get the floggings you so desperately crave. This nice lady would be happy to accommodate y’all, by phone or in person.

Cheers!
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 08:49
Well this one could turn out to be productive. I’d like to know who started this “urban myth” of that’s-not-something-Washington-would-say. What is there to support that?

Sounds Darrellistic.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 08:51
mkfreeberg: Not what I said.

John Adams is a “hideous hermaphroditical character” — Thomas Jefferson

mkfreeberg: Y’all (you) seek to do some debunking…

We cited researchers at the Mount Vernon Association. That should at least give you pause to check your sources.

mkfreeberg: Speaking of debunking, who ever told you this didn’t “sound like anything Washington would have said”?

There is a lot of documentation concerning Washington’s speeches, correspondence, and diaries. We could certainly be wrong, and would be happy to look at any substantiation you can provide for the quote.

mkfreeberg: Well this one could turn out to be productive.

This is somewhat off-topic. Frankly, we thought you would just correct your original blog, and move on.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 09:06
Frankly, we thought you would just correct your original blog, and move on.

There’s nothing to correct, though. Y’all have identified the quote as “spurious,” which merely suggests there is an open question. It doesn’t say anything about “Washington didn’t say that,” or anything of the sort. And it says absolutely nothing about whether the statement is right or not.

Are y’all trying to say Government is not a dangerous servant or a fearsome master?

Also, the question remains: From where did y’all get the idea that this isn’t something Washington would say? It seems y’all have gone on record with more questionable stuff here than I have.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 09:15
mkfreeberg: Y’all have identified the quote as “spurious,” which merely suggests there is an open question.

spurious, not genuine, sincere, or authentic: based on false ideas or bad reasoning

Just thought accuracy might be important to you. Our apologies for the presumption.

mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to say Government is not a dangerous servant or a fearsome master?

We didn’t weigh in on the issue.

mkfreeberg: From where did y’all get the idea that this isn’t something Washington would say?

As we said, there is a lot of documentation concerning Washington’s speeches, correspondence, and diaries. We could certainly be wrong, and would be happy to look at any substantiation you can provide for the quote.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 10:06
Aaaannnnddddd here we go, once more into the tilt-a-whirl of stupid. Let me save y’all the trouble, and reproduce the next 55+ posts:

Morgan: It’s an open question whether or not he did say it. There’s little doubt he’d agree with the sentiment.

Zachriel: But he didn’t actually say it. We cited blah blah blah.

Morgan: But those don’t prove anything. Moreover, it sounds like a sentiment he’d certainly agree with. Do you agree Washington would say something like “Government is a dangerous servant or a fearsome master?” Why or why not?

Zachriel: The exact string of words “Government is a dangerous servant or a fearsome master” does not appear in the writings of Washington.

Morgan: But where in the world did you get the idea that it’s not the kind of sentiment Washington would agree with?

Zachriel: The exact string of words “Government is a dangerous servant or a fearsome master” does not appear in the writings of Washington.

And so on and so on and Scooby Dooby Doo.

It doesn’t sound like the kind of thing Washington would say because they say so. Just like a guy who is an avowed communist is on the political right because they say so, the globe is warming because they say so, Obamacare is working great because they say so….

Because they say so, damn it! It’s science.
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 10:41
See, they just don’t understand the concept of uncertainty. The propaganda they’ve been collecting and indexing says by the way, historians have figured out there’s no source of this quote before 1902. So go ahead and “debunk” this one when & where you see it. In their sepia-brains that means “George Washington did not say it and anybody who says he did, we get to debunk and get our brownie points.”

Which might count for something if what I said was “George Washington definitely said this.” There, their error is compounded by their reading-comprehension problems. To people with common sense, the point of what I wrote was: The statement is correct, it doesn’t matter what name is attached to it, it’s the content that matters and not the signature beneath it.

Okay I’ll fix it right now: “Like that wise smart guy Morgan K. Freeberg wrote somewhere, government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Fixed? No, because actually that would be plagiarism. Plagiarism against George Washington? Maybe, but that would be “spurious.” Whatever. One way or another, the quote is tainted…

…because they don’t happen to like it. It’s arguing in bad faith to pretend it’s about anything else.

MEANWHILE. The claim that is really in dispute here, is:

The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said.

I’d be happy to look at any substantiation you or y’all can provide…
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 11:16
mkfreeberg: The claim that is really in dispute here, is: The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said. I’d be happy to look at any substantiation you or y’all can provide…

You can start here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 12:06
Right. I get that. I do. But they don’t / can’t / won’t. Take your pick.

And you’ve discovered the reason they don’t / can’t / won’t. Turns out it’s the same one every college kid masters sometime around his second bong rip on his very first late night dorm room bull session — cite only authorities that validate your pwecious widdle feewings and ignore everything else, because the truth’s like, totally relative, man. There is no such thing as an objective historical fact, but Professor Ponytail says Howard Zinn says the CEOs of the Fortune 500 really control Congress, and he’s so cool he wears sandals to class, so that must be right.

Meanwhile, such is the nature of history that you can dig your heels in at any particular point and be almost guaranteed to not “lose” an argument, if you define “losing” as “being proven conclusively wrong on the obscure micro-point on which you’ve chosen to dig in your heels.” In this case, it would require you and however many tiresome fucking cephalopods there actually are to sit down in a big archive and go through every word ever written by George Washington, plus every reasonably authentic report of his conversation ever put to pen, to “prove” he didn’t say it. Which, of course, still doesn’t “prove” that he didn’t, since Washington was a famous man who lived a long time and spoke to, I’m guessing, hundreds of thousands of people. Any one of who could’ve heard him say it, or something like it, and mention it in their old age, which got passed on to their kids, who relayed it to their grandkids….

Which, ironically enough, is the same method Holocaust deniers use. Since there’s no authentic record of him signing an order that says “I, Hitler, personally direct you to murder every single Jew you can get your hands on, and I really mean it, pinky swear,” they come up with all kinds of elaborate theories about how he didn’t really do it.

You can’t teach someone like that. They either grow up or they don’t.
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 12:25
And sure enough, right as I’m hitting “post,” here come the Cuttlefish to prove my point. Classic.

Here, let me help y’all, in small words even Aspergery retards should be able to understand. Nobody cares if Washington actually said those words in that order. Would Washington agree with the meaning of the phrase?

Hint: This is a yes / no question. The two acceptable answers are “yes” and “no.”

Now, because I can read and am developmentally normal, I take y’all’s position to be “no.” And here’s where I got that:

The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said.

But I’d be happy to look at any substantiation to the contrary you or y’all can provide…

….which oughtta be a hoot.
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 12:33
Severian: There is no such thing as an objective historical fact

Of course there is. George Washington was the president of the United States. Washington said a lot of things, but there is no evidence he said what was attributed to him above.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 12:59
Are we to take it, then, that your answer to the yes / no question “Would Washington agree with the meaning of the phrase?” is NO?

That is the question Morgan asked. That is the question I asked. A response is required from you for discussion to continue. Your choices are:

NO, Washington would not agree with the meaning of the quotation “government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

or

YES, Washington would agree with the meaning of the quotation “government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 13:34
Well they proved something. They pointed us here.

Granted it doesn’t rise to your rigorous demand of a yes-or-no answer, in fact, it isn’t specific in any way at all. But I’m sure it makes them feel all inky and puffy.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 13:57
Yeah, I saw that. And since they’re so familiar with the contents of the George Washington papers, they should easily be able to tell if the quoted statement fits in with the general tenor of his thoughts.

Or, at least, they know where to look to figure it out.
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 14:07
They may wish to start here. (<—- Note…that’s actually something specific.)

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

That is but one example of Washington’s concern about “despotism.” There are others. But one example is sufficient to start the deliberations: Is the “fire, servant, master” quote really out of the pattern of something Washington might have said?

More to the point, who exactly said it might be? When? Where? Based on what? We seem to have a lot of liberal nitwits running around echoing it, who got it started? Mr. Darrell perhaps?
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 14:40
Severian: That is the question Morgan asked.

No, he asked if it was something Washington might have said. No it doesn’t appear to resemble the type of language for which Washington is known.

Severian: Would Washington agree with the meaning of the phrase?

While Washington understood the dangers of government, as someone of the age of Enlightenment, he probably would have seen government as the result of reason.

In any case, the attribution is almost certainly spurious.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 14:47
While Washington understood the dangers of government, as someone of the age of Enlightenment, he probably would have seen government as the result of reason.

Oh, it’s the language, I see. Not the sentiment.

While Washington understood the dangers of government, as someone of the age of Enlightenment, he probably would have seen government as the result of reason.

That is QUITE a claim.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 15:05
That is QUITE a claim.

Did you really expect anything different?

So let’s try again. It’s a yes / no question, Cuttlefish. Your answer choices are YES and NO. You can squirt all the squid ink you want to try to obfuscate, but only after you choose YES or NO.

Follow that? The first word of your reply needs to be YES or NO.

So: “Would Washington agree with the meaning of the phrase?”

YES or NO.

Pick one.
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 15:18
Here’s an actual quote from Washington on government: “A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government.”

The science of government.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 16:06
mkfreeberg: Is the “fire, servant, master” quote really out of the pattern of something Washington might have said?

Yes, it is. Notice his language, “caution”, “encroachment”, “precedent”; language of the Enlightenment, not of the Romantic.

In any case, you made a spurious attribution in your original post, and have refused to correct. Thought it was a simple matter.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 16:11
YES or NO.

Those are your choices.

Pick one.
- Severian | 03/16/2014 @ 16:11
Yes, it is. Notice his language, “caution”, “encroachment”, “precedent”; language of the Enlightenment, not of the Romantic.

In any case, you made a spurious attribution in your original post, and have refused to correct. Thought it was a simple matter.

Again, there’s nothing to correct. Y’all have y’all’s reason for believing Washington didn’t say it, and it’s a good thing we took the time to inspect because it emerges that y’all’s objections have to do with vocabulary and not with Washington’s sentiments about government. That’s evidence. Some might find it compelling and others might not.

We live in a big world, in which reasonable people have different opinions about things. Better y’all figure that out late than not at all…meanwhile…the point is not about government providing children with education, the point is what I was saying about government being trustworthy.

Seems like y’all are reading from some kind of tome filled with quotes by Washington and Martin Luther King, and others, that can be used to justify big-government solutions, for those inconvenient moments when big-government people bump into other folks who NOTICE the big government solutions don’t work very well. And then y’all are trying to pigeonhole these statements y’all find on blogs to fit into that. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 18:57
mkfreeberg: Y’all have y’all’s reason for believing Washington didn’t say it, and it’s a good thing we took the time to inspect because it emerges that y’all’s objections have to do with vocabulary and not with Washington’s sentiments about government.

Our reason for believing Washington probably did not utter the statement you attributed to him is because we checked with an authoritative source and they find the quote to be spurious.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2014 @ 19:29
Let me know when they find some hard evidence that he didn’t say it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2014 @ 19:36
You checked one authoritative source… and only one? And when it said what you wanted to hear, you stopped looking?

In fact, you seem to have stopped looking halfway through the Mount Vernon statement that said they could find “no explanation for the misquote.” It goes on to add: “…[nor] locate another individual who said this statement, or uncover a similar quote of Washington’s…”

In many of the sources I uncovered (and it only took about five or ten minutes’ worth of Googling), the quote is used with the citation, “widely attributed to George Washington.” IOW it’s not certain he said it or wrote it, but a lot of people have given him credit for it. Usually, that happens only when the claim is plausible. Nobody would widely attribute to George Washington the quote “Once there was a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.” And while they’ve obviously looked, the scholars at Mount Vernon haven’t found another source for the quote either, and they have dedicated researchers with access to original source materials, not just an insomniac with a web search engine.

Leave all that aside for the moment, though. Let’s come to the point that’s been dodged for 30 comments and counting… is the statement accurate? Is government a dangerous servant and fearful master? Is that true regardless of who said it first?
- nightfly | 03/16/2014 @ 23:05
mkfreeberg: Let me know when they find some hard evidence that he didn’t say it.

Heh. It’s true unless someone proves it false. Between the Earth and Mars there’s a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit.

nightfly: In fact, you seem to have stopped looking halfway through the Mount Vernon statement that said they could find “no explanation for the misquote.”

Misquote.

nightfly: In many of the sources I uncovered (and it only took about five or ten minutes’ worth of Googling), the quote is used with the citation, “widely attributed to George Washington.”

Sure. It’s a meme. That doesn’t make it an accurate quotation. Washington talks about the science of government, the passions of men, not the inverse.

nightfly: Is government a dangerous servant and fearful master?

We’re with Washington. People have passions that, when unrestrained, can be destructive. That includes unbridled government as well as anarchy.

When we read the thread we noticed the statement didn’t comport with anything known about Washington or his letters. We checked and found that the quote is unsubstantiated. That was our only concern.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 06:16
So the answer to the question is YES, then. Washington would agree with the statement “government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master,” though he himself might not have uttered those exact words in that order.

Well, hell, boys, that only took, what, two days and twenty comments? And it’s still not technically an answer — remember, the available options for a yes/no question are “yes” and “no” — but you’re kinda sorta in the ballpark of a clear statement. A new record!

And, speaking of the record, you’re claiming that

The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said.

refers only to his diction. It has nothing to do with the sentiment.
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 06:23
Severian: So the answer to the question is YES, then.

Only sort of. The statement is an exaggerated Romantic anthropomorphism. That’s why we gave a fuller answer above.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 06:29
Taking all of the above into account, then, it seems there is no correction necessary to the statement I made: Washington was right.

But I would certainly have to fix it, if y’all can find strong evidence that Washington didn’t say this, and the quote actually originated from someone else. Even then, would it be necessary to revise a statement of “Washington was right”?

What if I rented a house in Alaska, and upon seeing Russia from it, announced “Hey, Sarah Palin was right!”? Would that be a statement in need of revision? Would I be obliged to buy ad space in the local paper and print a retraction or something?
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2014 @ 06:39
mkfreeberg: Taking all of the above into account, then, it seems there is no correction necessary to the statement I made: Washington was right.

Washington was right about a lot of things, and wrong about others. However, the attribution is spurious.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 06:41
But…widely credited to him. And to no one else.

The Palin analogy breaks down a bit, because a lot of people who value understanding and knowledge are clear on the fact that Tina Fey said it and Palin didn’t. So since “I can see Russia from my house!” is a spurious quote — should I do my part to keep the Internet clean of incorrect information ++chortle++ if I go to Alaska, see Russia, and put up a statement about “Palin was right”?

Either way, I wish y’all the very best of luck in purging the Internet of statements contrary to the opinions that have been reached by y’all. Keep me posted on y’all’s progress.
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2014 @ 06:43
I wish y’all the very best of luck in purging the Internet of statements contrary to the opinions that have been reached by y’all.

As do I.

As a parting gift, please do favor us with an answer to this one: Y’all’s statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said” refers only to Washington’s diction. Nothing else. That’s how I’m reading “only sort of,” but it’s so hard to tell with y’all.
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 07:20
Severian: “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said” refers only to Washington’s diction. Nothing else.

It refers to the philosophical disposition of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment did believe that government could be reasoned and eloquent when properly constrained, just like people could be reasoned and eloquent when constrained by tradition and practice. It is intrinsic to their vision of self-government. This is as opposed to the Romantics who saw passion as paramount in human affairs.

The lack of documentation for the quote, or even an oblique reference in the first century after his death, suggests that the quote is not genuine. The idea that it should be treated as accurate in the absence of any substantiation is no more convincing than saying there is a Chinese teapot in Martian orbit.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 07:36
So the answer to the question “Y’all’s statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said” refers only to Washington’s diction. Nothing else” is YES, then.

Is that correct? YES or NO.

It’s very simple. It requires y’all to type two letters minimum, three letters maximum. Give it a try. I know y’all can do it!
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 07:41
Severian: Is that correct? YES or NO.

We already answered you. It’s more than just diction, but the philosophical outlook of the Enlightenment. The statement is more akin to the Romantics, and while Washington was many things, a Romantic was not one of them.

While we are somewhat familiar with Washington’s writings, through his letters and journals, we freely admit our impression is not definitive. That’s why when we saw the quote, we checked with the Mount Vernon Association to see if there was any substantiation for it. There wasn’t, and they consider the quote to be spurious.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 07:49
Still not a YES or a NO, I see. Everybody please take note — the Cuttlefish have, to date, refused to answer a point-blank binary question, let’s see…. seven times now.

The reason I’m trying to break it down into simple yes/no questions, dearest Cuttlefish, is that despite y’all’s manifest unwillingness to learn (and your frankly hurtful lack of appreciation for all my efforts), I really do think that y’all can learn, though you’re trying your very hardest not to.

So let’s see if we can’t turn this into a teachable moment anyway.

I.

As explained to y’all here, developmentally normal readers will generally interpret the statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said” as being about the content of George Washington’s beliefs. Which, in fact, the developmentally normal readers in this comment thread did do. Especially when y’all doubled down, here. Morgan posted a comment which argued

To people with common sense, the point of what I wrote was: The statement is correct, it doesn’t matter what name is attached to it, it’s the content that matters and not the signature beneath it.

To which y’all responded with… wait for it…. wait for it… a link to the George Washington papers online.

See how that works? It sure sounds like y’all are claiming that Washington would have disagreed with the sentiment.

A dozen or more comments were directed at that specific interpretation. I even helpfully spelled it out in detail for y’all.

Now, IF that was a misinterpretation of y’all’s point, the easy and sufficient thing to do would be to say so. Like so: “Whether or not Washington would’ve agreed with that is immaterial; we’re only concerned with the absence of that particular string of words from Washington’s known writings.” Notice how that makes y’all’s position crystal clear. I even threw in y’all’s patented verbal tic.

II.

But y’all didn’t do that. Instead y’all doubled down yet again, asserting

No, [Morgan] asked if it was something Washington might have said. No it doesn’t appear to resemble the type of language for which Washington is known.

Here again, this is a response about diction when the question is about meaning. As we see here.

We’re we to take it, then, that your answer to the yes / no question “Would Washington agree with the meaning of the phrase?” is NO?

That is the question Morgan asked. That is the question I asked.

And you know it’s a question about meaning, not diction, because — pay attention now, this stuff’s important — Morgan posted two additional comments after that one. As a developmentally normal reader, he understood the plain language of my question. More importantly, he understood the plain language of a position attributed to him, by me, and didn’t challenge it.

Thus, the question is clearly about meaning. To which y’all responded with a statement about diction. See how this works? Not only did you not clarify your original remarks to make your dispute clearer, you refused several opportunities to do so, deliberately conflating meaning and diction.

III.

Speaking of deliberate conflation, y’all go back to that well again here. The statement

we’re with Washington

cannot be read, in context, by any developmentally normal person, as anything other than agreement with the meaning of the statement

government is like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master

But in that same reply, y’all also claim

When we read the thread we noticed the statement didn’t comport with anything known about Washington or his letters. We checked and found that the quote is unsubstantiated. That was our only concern

That’s about as clear a statement as y’all are capable of making, and it’s about diction. Specifically, that your only concern is about the correct attribution of a statement to George Washington.

In that case, why all the endless circumlocution?

When pressed on that very point, y’all come back with

Only sort of. The statement is an exaggerated Romantic anthropomorphism. That’s why we gave a fuller answer above.

Where said “fuller answer” can only be the preceding mishmash. And when y’all were offered the opportunity to clarify this yet again

Taking all of the above into account, then, it seems there is no correction necessary to the statement I made: Washington was right.

y’all tried to obfuscate again

Washington was right about a lot of things, and wrong about others. However, the attribution is spurious.

And again an opportunity for clarification

As a parting gift, please do favor us with an answer to this one: Y’all’s statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said” refers only to Washington’s diction. Nothing else. That’s how I’m reading “only sort of,” but it’s so hard to tell with y’all

is bypassed

It refers to the philosophical disposition of the Enlightenment….The lack of documentation for the quote, or even an oblique reference in the first century after his death, suggests that the quote is not genuine

with a special bonus reference to teapots on Mars or some shit. And one more request for clarification is once again evaded.

IV

Jesus that was tedious. I don’t want to think of the minutes I wasted on that which are gone forever from my life. But I’m sincerely hoping y’all learn something by all that. To wit: You can’t have it both ways.

The charitable interpretation –and I’m talking “Mother Teresa washing the lepers”-levels of charity here — is that y’all honestly didn’t know that “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said” could be interpreted as a statement about meaning, not diction, and that y’all were unable to process the many, many clarifications of that point, because y’all are a collective of Asperger’s Syndrome sufferers.

Note that this is the charitable explanation.

The uncharitable one is that y’all are committed above all to the principle of “never concede anything, ever,” and so when your own statement starts out backing you into a corner, you’ve got no choice but to defend it with endless squirts of squid ink, even though it’s quite obvious that you’re trying to use the “fact” of the quote’s misattribution to bail out your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponents’ argument.

Personally, I’m hoping it’s the former, because at least that way I didn’t waste precious moments of my life trying to help out the deliberately dishonest. But the fact that one single, simple statement from y’all could’ve prevented the whole mess indicates that it’s the latter.

And it’s extra funny, too, given that “George Washington didn’t actually say it” is a winning argument. Y’all could’ve gotten extra puffy and self-righteous just by banging that drum over and over — “he didn’t actually say it; you can’t prove he did; look, someone on the right is pushing historical inaccuracy!” Short of sitting down in a big room with every single thing Washington ever wrote and going over it piece by piece, there’s no way we could “prove” that he said it. It’s a guaranteed winner if you don’t want to be wrong.

But because y’all have OCD about never conceding anything, y’all have to go round and round and endlessly round, trying to muddy the waters. And failing. So very, very hard.
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 09:14
Severian: The reason I’m trying to break it down into simple yes/no questions …

Not everything breaks down into simple yes/no answers. For instance, diction is part of it, but not all of it.

Severian: To people with common sense, the point of what I wrote was: The statement is correct, it doesn’t matter what name is attached to it, it’s the content that matters and not the signature beneath it.

Of course it matters when you misattribute something.

Severian: It sure sounds like y’all are claiming that Washington would have disagreed with the sentiment.

No, we didn’t make that argument. Our point, on what we thought was tangential, was to note that the quote is probably spurious.

Severian: The uncharitable one is that y’all are committed above all to the principle of “never concede anything, ever,”

We’d be happy to concede that Washington made the statement if such evidence were to be provided. We seriously thought it was one of those situations where the blogger would make a small correction (e.g. “apocryphal to George Washington”), then return to the original intent of the post. Instead, the spurious attribution was defended to the utmost.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 09:38
No, we didn’t make that argument.

As was pointed out in irrefutable detail, y’all had multiple opportunities to clarify any confusion on this point. You didn’t, and in fact you doubled down on it.
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 11:06
Severian: It sure sounds like y’all are claiming that Washington would have disagreed with the sentiment.

We explained in detail why Washington probably wouldn’t have expressed that sentiment. Even the long section mkfreeberg posted supports this. We’re open to evidence to the contrary, but none has been forthcoming.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2014 @ 11:10
We explained in detail why Washington probably wouldn’t have expressed that sentiment.

Refer to y’all’s Chronicle of Shame for a detailed refutation of this.

Cut and paste my reply as necessary for any other lame attempts you choose to make to defend yourselves in this thread. Thanks, no doubt, to some very patient trainers down at the aquarium, that’s one thing we know y’all have learned to do.
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 11:16
Quite the creative-writing exercise to try to figure out what my retraction would look like:

It has been brought to my attention that an individual, OR a collective, I know not which, of people, I think, and I know not who they are…have reached a conclusion, and after many exchanges it remains unclear how they reached it, that Washington did not say or write the thing that has been attributed to him here. It has not been conclusively proven that he didn’t, but it also has not been conclusively proven that he did, nevertheless, this person, or this collective of persons, or perhaps an individual or collective of a different species, has read something, I know not what, which has led him/her/them to deny this quote — I know not how emphatically.

But he, or she, they, clearly, are on some kind of mission to purge the Internet of any content contrary to their more-or-less random speculations…far be it from us to obstruct him, or her, or them, in this quest. So believe what you like about whether or not Washington said it, but please don’t think anything that will tick off the cuttlefish.

Something like that, I guess.

But best of luck to you in your cleaning-up of the Internet.
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2014 @ 20:25
Heh. Nice.

You’ll notice, though, that they themselves don’t really know what they want cleaned up. Here, for instance, they claim that the unsubstantiated quote — i.e. Washington’s diction— is their “only concern,” and they want you to retract it.

But up here they claim that “We explained in detail why Washington probably wouldn’t have expressed that sentiment,” and they demand that you retract that.

So it beats my pair of jacks as to what they actually want. My best guess? It’s at least two different retards posting under the same handle, neither of which actually reads each other’s comments, let alone more than a sentence or two of anything directed at them.

Which would explain the wonderful lucidity of their arguments, I guess, but holy macaroni is it pointless. And given that they’ve jumped to a different thread on this here blog after getting beaten to a pulp in this one, I’m thinking the explanation is more likely to be found among the paraphilias.
- Severian | 03/17/2014 @ 21:05
Severian: Here, for instance, they claim that the unsubstantiated quote — i.e. Washington’s diction– is their “only concern,” and they want you to retract it.

Our only concern has been the putting of words in Washington’s mouth without substantiation.

mkfreeberg: Something like that, I guess.

Changing it to “often attributed to George Washington” would be the usual way.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2014 @ 05:16
I wish y’all luck in y’all’s quest to make sure all idle speculation on the Internet is the same as y’all’s.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2014 @ 05:45
mkfreeberg: I wish y’all luck in y’all’s quest to make sure all idle speculation on the Internet is the same as y’all’s.

Outs is not idle speculation, but evidence supported by researchers in the field. Nor have you been offering speculation.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2014 @ 06:14
Y’all have not offered “evidence supported by researchers in the field” that anyone besides George Washington originated this quote.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2014 @ 06:29
http://tinyurl.com/cfishbeatdown
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2014 @ 06:30
mkfreeberg: Y’all have not offered “evidence supported by researchers in the field” that anyone besides George Washington originated this quote.

We’ve offered evidence that the quote did not originate with George Washington.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2014 @ 06:33
Our only concern has been the putting of words in Washington’s mouth without substantiation

Let’s go to the tape. Survey says…. wrong!!!

See, this is why I spent all those minutes putting together that record of y’all’s ham-handed attempts to have it both ways. So that when you pull the same crap again (and again and again and again), we’ll have a handy go-to resource. I shall call it Shame: The Cuttlefish Chronicles. It’s got that nice YA lit ring to it. Read this, children. Don’t be like these people.
- Severian | 03/18/2014 @ 06:43
Severian: Let’s go to the tape.

Z: When we read the thread we noticed the statement didn’t comport with anything known about Washington or his letters. We checked and found that the quote is unsubstantiated. That was our only concern.

Yes, the quote is unsubstantiated. That was our only concern.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2014 @ 06:51
Yes, the quote is unsubstantiated. That was our only concern.

Hey, it’s Retard #2, who doesn’t read what Retard #1 just wrote!!!

Refer to Shame: The Cuttlefish Chronicles for a detailed refutation. Y’all might want to print it out for handy reference, or store it that .txt file where you keep the same stuff you’ve been cutting and pasting since 2005. It’s even got numbered sections for your convenience. Y’all really should read it together — a sort of meeting of the tentacles — before one of you straps on the special keyboarding helmet and wheels over to the computer. It’d save y’all a lot of embarrassment.
- Severian | 03/18/2014 @ 07:03
Severian: …holy macaroni, is it pointless.

There is no evidence that the feather in Yankee Doodle Dandy’s hat was actually made of macaroni, and the only source that he called it such is dubious.
- nightfly | 03/18/2014 @ 12:44
Severian: Hey

Language is more than diction.

nightfly: There is no evidence that the feather in Yankee Doodle Dandy’s hat was actually made of macaroni, and the only source that he called it such is dubious.

He called it macaroni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Doodle#History_and_lyrics
- Zachriel | 03/18/2014 @ 13:27
Cuttlefish,

I refer you to your Shame Chronicle for this and all other points. As I will continue to do any time you address me with your lame, tendentious bullshit. Which is to say, any time you type a comment in my direction.

Viddy it well, oh my squiddies: you have been B-U-S-T-E-D. There is no possible way anyone with half a brain in their head could read Shame: The Cuttlefish Chronicles and not realize that y’all are pathetic, dishonest hacks. But if y’all choose to continue to address me, I will continue to link it until y’all finally get the point, and scuttle back under whichever rock spawned y’all in the depths of the world’s dumbest aquarium.

You’ve been notified. And I really do wish y’all the best in your efforts to purge the internet of things you disagree with.
- Severian | 03/18/2014 @ 20:14
Severian: As explained to y’all here, developmentally normal readers will generally interpret the statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said”

That’s correct. George Washington was a product of the Enlightenment. The statement doesn’t seem to match Washington’s diction or philosophy. However, “seems to” is not a very strong argument, so we checked with the Mount Vernon Association, and they have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2014 @ 04:35
I wasn’t kidding, you idiots.
- Severian | 03/19/2014 @ 05:49
Severian,

No problem. Let us know when you wish to engage the point concerning the spurious quote.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 03/19/2014 @ 06:11
Last!
- Severian | 03/19/2014 @ 06:21
Wow.

It was a merely adequate joke, but what the hey… and I have to admit, you didn’t disappoint. YOU TOOK THE JOKE SERIOUSLY AND TRIED TO REFUTE IT. That’s way funnier than anything I would have tried to put on you guys.

And since you did that, why, I might as well point out a couple of things. According to the source you yourselves cited, those weren’t the original words of the song “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” They were crafted later in mockery of the unsophisticated Yanks, intended as a slander – and slanders, by definition, are not true. So though I was completely unserious and flippant, and you were grimly, meticulously, scrupulously serious – it turns out that I was right, and YDD never said that… it was only claimed he did by people who wished to make fun of him.
- nightfly | 03/19/2014 @ 08:01
nightfly: It was a merely adequate joke, but what the hey… and I have to admit, you didn’t disappoint. YOU TOOK THE JOKE SERIOUSLY AND TRIED TO REFUTE IT.

Got the joke. Thought the history was interesting.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2014 @ 08:11
Nightfly,

they got the joke, all right. Sure they did. **wink wink, nudge nudge**

You can always tell when they’re feeling embarrassed — they drop their pronouns.
- Severian | 03/19/2014 @ 08:30
Severian: **wink wink, nudge nudge**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc
- Zachriel | 03/19/2014 @ 08:40
Hmmm… y’all tried to address me again. Sad.
- Severian | 03/19/2014 @ 08:51
Severian: As explained to y’all here, developmentally normal readers will generally interpret the statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said”

That’s correct. George Washington was a product of the Enlightenment. The statement doesn’t seem to match Washington’s diction or philosophy. However, “seems to” is not a very strong argument, so we checked with the Mount Vernon Association, and they have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 10:00
It seems, to me, to match Washington’s diction. And it seems, to me, to match Washington’s philosophy.

I’m sure all reasonable people would agree with me. If they don’t, I’ll simply call them unreasonable.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2014 @ 19:12
mkfreeberg: It seems, to me, to match Washington’s diction. And it seems, to me, to match Washington’s philosophy.

We’d be happy to look at similar examples. Here’s the George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mgwquery.html

In any case, “seems to” is not a very strong argument, so we checked with the Mount Vernon Association, and they have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 05:31
We’d be happy to look at similar examples. Here’s the George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress.

Okay, find something specific in there, and get back. In the meantime, the quote seems, to me, to match Washington’s diction, and it seems, to me,, to match Washington’s philosophy.

In any case, “seems to” is not a very strong argument,

Then why, in all these threads, do y’all keep using it?
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 05:33
mkfreeberg: In the meantime, the quote seems, to me, to match Washington’s diction, and it seems, to me,, to match Washington’s philosophy.

Well, you say that, but can’t point to similar examples from Washington’s speeches or correspondence.

mkfreeberg: Then why, in all these threads, do y’all keep using it?

Very good question, though we have already answered it. Having read many of Washington’s writings (including his personal journal which had a lot of great information about his gardening!), the quote didn’t *seem* to comport with what we knew of either Washington’s diction or philosophy. Indeed, it *seemed* to be something written by a Romantic, not someone steeped in the Enlightenment. But, “seems to” is not a very strong argument, so we checked with the Mount Vernon Association, and they have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.

So in other words, the “seems to” just forms the suspicion, a healthy skepticism, a hypothesis. The conclusion is determined by historical research, which was already done by the scholars at Mount Vernon.

Monday Apl. 14.
Fine warm day, Wind Soly and clear till the Eveng. when it clouded.

No Fish were to be catchd to day neither.

Mixd my Composts in a box with ten Apartments in the following manner viz.–in No.
1 is three pecks of the Earth brought from below the Hill out of the 46 Acre Field without any mixture–in No.
2. is two pecks of the said Earth and one of Marie taken out of the said Field which Marie seemd a little Inclinable to Sand.
3. Has 2 Pecks of sd. Earth and 1 of Riverside Sand.
4. Has a Peck of Horse Dung.
5. Has Mud taken out of the Creek.
6. Has Cow Dung.
7. Marle from the Gullys on the Hill side wch. seemd to be purer than the other.
8. Sheep Dung.
9. Black Mould taken out of the Pocoson on the Creek side.
10. Clay got just below the Garden.
All mixd with the same quantity & sort of Earth in the most effectual manner by reducing the whole to a tolerable degree of fineness & jubling them well together in a Cloth.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 06:13
And then there are these.

All “spurious,” I suppose?
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:23
mkfreeberg: All “spurious,” I suppose?

Many are. Some aren’t. We didn’t investigate the entire list.

These are bogus: “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes— we need them every hour.”
“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”
“It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.”

This one is misattributed (though Washington did write the maxim out as a child): Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ’tis better to be alone than in bad Company.

This one sounds like our George (but is compressed from the original): “the foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every man of sense and character detests and despises it.”

This one is genuine, 1790: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 17:40
We didn’t investigate the entire list.

Well, give me a ring when that’s done. Meanwhile, the evidence says that George Washington was a man of many divergent speaking & writing styles.

Also, that he was an extraordinary individual in most every conceivable respect. It would be a mistake to say George Washington could or should be expected to be & do such-and-such, just because of the age in which he lived, reasoning that that’s what ordinary people did. He wasn’t ordinary and he didn’t write in any ordinary way.

Bottom line: I can see him saying the fire-master thingy. Y’all haven’t presented anything to dissuade me from this. In spite of vast, unlimited opportunities to do so.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:50
mkfreeberg: Also, that he was an extraordinary individual in most every conceivable respect.

Yes, he was. However, he was a man of his time.

mkfreeberg: Y’all haven’t presented anything to dissuade me from this.

The Mount Vernon Association have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 18:55
The Mount Vernon Association have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.

“Yeah, ya said that.” — Carl Showalter.

At the end of the day, don’t have any reason to believe the quote is false, and very little reason to even doubt it. The association determined? “Police associations” endorse democrats for governor & mayor all the time.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 19:21
mkfreeberg: At the end of the day, don’t have any reason to believe the quote is false, and very little reason to even doubt it.

Experts scholars who work directly with the history of George Washington should give you doubt, especially lacking any evidence otherwise.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:26
Experts scholars who work directly with the history of George Washington should give you doubt, especially lacking any evidence otherwise.

I said “little,” not “no.”

That suffices.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 19:34
mkfreeberg: I said “little,” not “no.”

Consider it like a balance scale. On the one side we have experts in the field, on the other we have nothing except you want it to be true. Absent specific evidence otherwise, scholars who work directly with the history of George Washington are convincing.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:41
Consider it like a balance scale. On the one side we have experts in the field, on the other we have nothing except you want it to be true. Absent specific evidence otherwise, scholars who work directly with the history of George Washington are convincing.

We don’t know that, until we know who’s being convinced. Y’all’s “scale” is inherently subjective, and has to be, since it’s passive-voice — has the verb and the object, but is lacking in subject.

I’ll be happy to note y’all’s objection for what it truly is: A collective of Internet busybodies, somewhere, unknown in identity as well as in quantity, has some doubts that George Washington said it.

That’s about the best I can do. And it isn’t much. There are denizens of the Internet who have doubts about the moon landing. All right, we’ll note it for the files.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 05:00
mkfreeberg: A collective of Internet busybodies, somewhere, unknown in identity as well as in quantity, has some doubts that George Washington said it.

No, scholars at the Mount Vernon Society.

mkfreeberg: We don’t know that until we know who’s being convinced.

Reasonable persons. Persons who can read a balance scale, and determine the preponderance of the evidence. We’re asking you what is on the other side of the balance scale. On the one side we have experts in the field. On the other, we have what?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 05:53
Reasonable persons. Persons who can read a balance scale, and determine the preponderance of the evidence. We’re asking you what is on the other side of the balance scale. On the one side we have experts in the field. On the other, we have what?

Yes, it’s fun to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you can’t do basic things like “read a balance scale.” It’s also Ed-Darrell-ific. Which is another way of saying it’s full of baloney.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 18:17
We’re asking you what is on the other side of the balance scale. On the one side we have experts in the field. On the other, we have what?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 18:44
On the one side we have experts in the field.

Really? Y’all know this?
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 19:44
τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 20:26
Zachriel: On the one side we have experts in the field.

mkfreeberg: Really? Y’all know this?

Yes. The Mount Vernon Association is the oldest national historic preservation organization in the U.S., a repository of documents and a center of historical research concerning George Washington.
http://www.mountvernon.org/

That’s one side of the scale. What’s on the other side?
- Zachriel | 04/25/2014 @ 18:00
That’s one side of the scale. What’s on the other side?

That’s not all of the “one side.” On that side, we also have people who think they know something that they don’t know.

In fact, they’re reading a level of certainty into what these “experts” said, that is not shared by the experts themselves. That means something.

It’s called arrogance, and it leads to problems. After we’ve dealt with that, we can see what we have on “the other side.”
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2014 @ 23:45
mkfreeberg: That’s not all of the “one side.” On that side, we also have people who think they know something that they don’t know.

We’re citing historians working from original documents. They said the quote was probably spurious.
- Zachriel | 04/28/2014 @ 15:35
We’re citing historians working from original documents.

Which leaves a certain level of uncertainty. There is a term to describe this: Residual uncertainty.

An example: I have some residual uncertainty, albeit very, very little, that y’all’s history-experts would agree the residual uncertainty is there. It’s part of studying history. It is the great flaw in most genealogical recording: Everyone remembers to jot down so-and-so was born on such-and-such a date, and was the child of so-and-so and what’s-her-name. Far fewer remember to make a record of why they think they know these things.

Y’all don’t understand uncertainty, let alone ponder the ramifications of it. Worse yet, y’all have yet to show any understanding of this very rudimentary concept that is relevant to all human knowledge.
- mkfreeberg | 04/28/2014 @ 18:09
[…] We’ve got some liberal dipshits commenting on this blog, protesting that George Washington could not have said something commonly attributed to George Washington, based almost entirely on the opinions of some unnamed “experts.” […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/28/2014 @ 19:29
mkfreeberg: Which leaves a certain level of uncertainty.

All empirical conclusions have some level of uncertainty; however, the weight of the evidence is that the quote is spurious. On the one side of the scale, we have the expert opinion of researchers at the Mount Vernon Association. On the other, you have offered nothing.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:12
All empirical conclusions have some level of uncertainty…

Yours is not an empirical conclusion. Empirical has nothing to do with the conclusion y’all are presenting here.

It isn’t even a conclusion. Conclusions have to be conclusive to be conclusions. Oh, y’all can make it one, for y’all’selves, something I suspect not even y’all’s “experts” are doing. But even then it’s only a conclusion in y’all’s submerged, fishy minds.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2014 @ 17:45
mkfreeberg: Empirical has nothing to do with the conclusion y’all are presenting here.

It’s based on observation, in particular, documents from the period.

mkfreeberg: It isn’t even a conclusion.

Of course it’s a conclusion. Scholars have examined the evidence and concluded that the quote is probably spurious. Like all such conclusions, it can be considered tentative, but you have produced no evidence indicating the quote is properly attributed.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 03:16
It’s based on…documents from the period.

Non-empirical.

This is an important clue on why y’all are mistaken about a great many other things. It’s got to do with pretending things are the opposite of what they really are. Treating people unequally is treating them equally; the non-empirical is empirical.

severian is right. Back to the shame closet with y’all.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 04:28
Zachriel: It’s based on…documents from the period.

mkfreeberg: Non-empirical.

Are you saying people can’t observe documents, that documents aren’t subject to investigation? For provenance? For content?

mkfreeberg: It’s got to do with pretending things are the opposite of what they really are.

Are you saying the documents purported to be written by George Washington housed by the library at Mount Vernon are not actually written by George Washington?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 06:58
Are you saying the documents purported to be written by George Washington housed by the library at Mount Vernon are not actually written by George Washington?

“Empirical” would mean y’all saw George Washington write the documents. Is that what y’all are saying?

Or, we could re-define “empirical” to have something to do with documents. Y’all could do y’all’s patented “words are defined by common usage” soft-shoe around the core issue, change the subject whenever questions come up about Dan Rather’s fake-but-accurate National Guard memos (which were authenticated by a professional, although it seems there was a miscommunication about how much authentication got done)…

…and when the smoke is cleared, we’d find y’all had pretty much obliterated the word “empirical.” Since, if “the document says so, that makes it empirical” qualifies as empirical, then everything else does too. We’d have to include “so-and-so says it happened, that’s empirical” — especially if that person is an expert, since it’s well-recorded what y’all think of experts.

If everything is empirical, then nothing is.

So if it’s a recording of some kind, involving a chain-of-custody of any length that could be open to challenge — well, I don’t think that qualifies. I realize that’s common sense, and it’s also inconvenient to y’all’s argument. Those are the two vital ingredients needed for y’all to come back with some sort of “not hah, we can’t hear you la la la” objection. So bring it on, I’m sure it’s coming.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 17:46
mkfreeberg: Or, we could re-define “empirical” to have something to do with documents.

We can observe documents, and the evidence of their provenance.

mkfreeberg: If everything is empirical, then nothing is.

Empirical, a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation.

mkfreeberg: So if it’s a recording of some kind, involving a chain-of-custody of any length that could be open to challenge

So you are challenging the provenance of documents in the Mount Vernon library. Which documents? All of them? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 05/01/2014 @ 09:24
We can observe documents, and the evidence of their provenance.

Were Dan Rather’s documents “empirical”?
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2014 @ 19:47
mkfreeberg: Were Dan Rather’s documents “empirical”?

Evidence can be empirical, not documents. Rather incorrectly claimed that the documents were direct evidence of events from George Bush’s past.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 07:27
So you are challenging the provenance of documents in the Mount Vernon library. Which documents? All of them? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 07:28
Rather incorrectly claimed that the documents were direct evidence of events from George Bush’s past.

Looks to me like y’all are making the same mistake.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2014 @ 18:26
mkfreeberg: Looks to me like y’all are making the same mistake.

So you’re saying that the documents kept at Mount Vernon are not authentic? Which documents? All of them? Do you have evidence for this assertion?
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 18:49
So you’re saying that the documents kept at Mount Vernon are not authentic? Which documents? All of them? Do you have evidence for this assertion?

OH DEAR.

There is: Bringing evidence that something is false; and then there is calling into doubt the assertion that it is true. Those are two very different things.

Y’all need to do some research on that difference before we can continue this conversation, I’m afraid. Let me know when y’all have read up.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2014 @ 20:08
mkfreeberg: There is: Bringing evidence that something is false; and then there is calling into doubt the assertion that it is true. Those are two very different things.

You haven’t done either of those things. You merely wave your hands.
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 07:18
mkfreeberg: then there is calling into doubt the assertion that it is true.

In what way do you call into doubt the expert opinion of scholars at Mount Vernon concerning George Washington?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 08:54
You haven’t done either of those things. You merely wave your hands.

No, not lately. I use my hands to pretty much drive, drink and type. I’ll wave them if I see someone from a great distance who I recognize, but that hasn’t happened lately.
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2014 @ 12:26
In what way do you call into doubt the expert opinion of scholars at Mount Vernon concerning George Washington?

Baby steps; we’re still working on this concept of “empirical documents.”

Were Dan Rather’s documents empirical?
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2014 @ 12:55
mkfreeberg: Were Dan Rather’s documents empirical?

Evidence can be empirical, not documents. Observation of the documents is empirical. They become evidence when they are entailed in a proposition. Rather incorrectly claimed that the documents were direct evidence of events from George Bush’s past. There were several lines of evidence that called into doubt the authenticity of the documents.

In what way do you call into doubt the expert opinion of scholars at Mount Vernon concerning George Washington?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 13:25
Evidence can be empirical, not documents. Observation of the documents is empirical.

Sorry, this is just purest nonsense.

If there is some limitation on the confidence we can place in documents, then the confidence we can place in observation of the documents must be just as limited, if not even more so (due to yet more factors).

This is the part where y’all admit y’all misused the word. Or…y’all can dig the hole deeper, opting for the tried and true “refuse to concede anything, ever” gimmick. I’m betting y’all will go for the second option.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 00:12
mkfreeberg: If there is some limitation on the confidence we can place in documents, then the confidence we can place in observation of the documents must be just as limited

Of course. In what way do you call into doubt the authenticity of the documents housed at Mount Vernon? Which documents? All of them? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 09:01
My question stands. Were Dan Rather’s documents empirical?
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 10:28
mkfreeberg: Were Dan Rather’s documents empirical?

We already answered. Documents aren’t empirical, the observation of the documents is empirical, which is probably what you mean. Empirical analysis showed they were likely not authentic.

And our question stands. In what way do you call into doubt the authenticity of the documents housed at Mount Vernon? Which documents? All of them? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 12:05
Empirical analysis showed they were likely not authentic.

Dan Rather’s crew had the documents “authenticated,” by “document experts.”

The document experts did not give the producers the answers they wanted, so the producers took that to mean what they wanted it to mean. In their minds, the documents were as empirical as empirical gets. Even in Microsoft Word font.

Are y’all now backing of from y’all’s claim that the word “empirical” is fitting here, since “It’s based on observation, in particular, documents from the period”?
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 13:35
mkfreeberg: In their minds, the documents were as empirical as empirical gets.

Would you please drop the incoherence. Documents are not empirical. Documents are documents. In any case, CBS ignored questions raised by their own document experts.

What is your point exactly? That documents can be forgeries? Sure. Are you calling into doubt the authenticity of the documents housed at Mount Vernon? Which documents? All of them? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 13:43
Would you please drop the incoherence. Documents are not empirical.

Then why did y’all say they are?
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 15:17
mkfreeberg: Then why did y’all say they are?

We’ve said the contrary many times.

mk: Empirical has nothing to do with the conclusion y’all are presenting here.

Z: It’s based on observation, in particular, documents from the period.

It’s based on observation of documents from the period. You should really try to read to understand rather than to make it fit into your preconceptions of what it must mean.

Now try to answer the question. Are you calling into doubt the authenticity of the documents housed at Mount Vernon? Which documents? All of them? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 18:06
M: Then why did y’all say they [documents] are [empirical]?

Z: We’ve said the contrary many times.

Uh huh.

M: Empirical has nothing to do with the conclusion y’all are presenting here.

Z: It’s based on observation, in particular, documents from the period.

Maybe this whole dialogue would be a lot less confusing, if y’all simply dropped the “concede nothing under any circumstances” rule. Or, suspended it. Just long enough to admit y’all misused the word. One time.

Are y’all big enough?

I’m betting no.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 18:15
Z: It’s based on observation, in particular, documents from the period.

That’s right. Removing the conjuctive adverb, we have “It’s based on observation, documents from the period.” Not sure why you are having troubles with that. Even if you were confused before, you shouldn’t still be confused.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 19:19
That’s right. Removing the conjuctive adverb, we have…

And why would we do that? Now y’all are just being silly.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 19:32
mkfreeberg: And why would we do that?

Sorry. Thought English was your first language. The conjunctive clarifies the clauses, but doesn’t change them. In this case, the conjunctive merely alerts the reader that the second clause is a particular instance of the first clause:

Empiricism is based on observation.
As an example,
Observation of documents is empirical.

You can remove the conjunctive and still get the gist. While you may have been confused before, you should now understand our meaning, and can respond to the intended meaning, not to what you thought they should mean.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 05:26
Observation of documents is empirical.

Was Dan Rather’s observation of documents empirical?
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2014 @ 05:29
mkfreeberg: Was Dan Rather’s observation of documents empirical?

CBS only saw copies, and their experts indicated problems with the documents based on those copies. Yes, that is empirical, meaning observation.
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 06:03
Okay then. Thank y’all for vividly illustrating how y’all reach incorrect conclusions, with complete confidence. Same way Dan Rather did.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 05:42
mkfreeberg: Thank y’all for vividly illustrating how y’all reach incorrect conclusions, with complete confidence.

Not sure your point. The evidence indicates the documents were not authentic. Are you arguing otherwise? Or that there’s no way to know from examining the documents?
- Zachriel | 05/07/2014 @ 08:15
Not sure your point.

Let’s check the transcript.

M: Empirical has nothing to do with the conclusion y’all are presenting here.

Z: It’s based on observation, in particular, documents from the period.

So. It’s clear from just this part of the exchange, y’all were using the word “empirical” the way y’all usually use things, to win arguments. To fortify a position so that y’all’s silly opponents should know, once and for all, that they should not be questioning it. As a cudgel.

By the time we’re done hashing out meanings, things have changed:

CBS only saw copies, and their experts indicated problems with the documents based on those copies. Yes, that is empirical, meaning observation.

So y’all seek to win arguments with bits of evidence that, according to y’all’s own commentary, could very well be fraudulent — and, what of it. Who cares. We’re supposed to just buy it, or else we’re waving our hands or something.

Y’all ultimately aren’t proving or asserting much of anything. What y’all are building, far from being an actual case for or against something, is an elegant structure of efficient and erroneous thinking. Perhaps I should capture it all in a book, which I can then publish under the title “How to make bigger mistakes, faster and with more confidence.”

I might consider cutting y’all in on the profits, if only I knew who y’all were. Since that’s not the case, I guess it’s my intellectual property by default.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 18:05
mkfreeberg: It’s clear from just this part of the exchange, y’all were using the word “empirical” the way y’all usually use things, to win arguments.

We’re using empirical in its usual sense, based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation.

mkfreeberg: So y’all seek to win arguments with bits of evidence that, according to y’all’s own commentary, could very well be fraudulent — and, what of it.

Yes, they could very well be fraudulent. That’s what the empirical evidence indicates. So what is your point?
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 04:51
We’re using empirical in its usual sense, based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation.

What y’all are doing, is backpedaling.

Z: Our evidence is empirical! Back down!

M: There’s nothing empirical about that.

Z: Their observation of the documents is empirical.

M: Dan Rather’s documents were empirical, then?

Z: They empirically observed the documents, hey, that’s all we’re saying here.

This is a great example of how Zachriel logic fails in the real world. In y’all’s weird little universe, y’all’s argument is splendid. We have the Mount Vernon authorities; wonderful, wonderful experts. World’s oldest blah blah blah, scholars, experts, they say spurious. Of course, they aren’t even named. They don’t seem to have spent too much time on this, the page isn’t even carefully proofread. But they’re experts! On the OTHER hand, we have Morgan with his doubts, and that’s a big nothing. How many estates has Morgan been stewarding lately, huh?? He’s merely waving his hands. It’s infinity-to-nothing. Obviously the “spurious quote” people win, it’s like, not even close!

But when we weight what we actually know about this question — we know next to nothing. Someone with resources, we assume, launched a search for origins of this quote and they couldn’t find anything before 1902. Well, that says something, but really not too much, since 1902 is actually quite a long time ago. The question then turns to whether it’s plausible Washington could have said something between his lifetime, and 1902, and could that fragment have been lost. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. But we haven’t discussed that aspect of it at all, and…look how sure y’all are of y’all’s questionable conclusion. Experts! Hand waving!

In y’all’s little snow-globe reality, doubts have to be supported. That doesn’t actually work in reality. Someone says “You don’t really know that” — maybe that isn’t true. If it isn’t true, you argue that you actually do know what you think you know. You don’t get to accuse the other guy of hand waving, and then essentially say “Therefore, we really do know it.”

Weirdly, in y’all’s snow-globe, facts, also, have to be supported. Empirically observed facts. Bob walks right in front of us and trips, we both see it, if I say “Bob just tripped” I have to provide support. When y’all’s thinking fabric relies on not knowing what y’all really do, and knowing what y’all really don’t — who really cares what y’all think? If y’all are right about anything, it’s like a busted clock being right about the time.

I’m taking notes for my “How to reach wrong conclusions, faster and with more confidence” book.

τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2014 @ 05:39
mkfreeberg: What y’all are doing, is backpedaling.

Our position has been consistent throughout. Nothing in your comment addresses empiricism or documentary evidence or George Washington or CBS. Try to focus.

Investigations of the CBS documents indicated they were probably fraudulent. The documents at Mount Vernon have been investigated by experts in the field, and their provenance has been authenticated. Both investigations involve empirical evidence, though the findings are different.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 05:51
Our position has been consistent throughout….

Y’all’s consistency is not a problem, not even in the slightest. The issue is y’all’s treatment of expert opinion. Some of us out here in the real world, have actually been experts at some things, and we understand the limitations of expertise, even expertise in the field of study that is under discussion.

Expert opinion is worth something very close to whatever would be lost by the expert if the opinion turned out to be wrong. That, in general, is a pretty good rule. In this case, y’all’s Mount Vernon experts might lose some credibility if someone came out and said: “Here is something tying the quote to George Washington, from 1822.” They might lose a little bit more if that person went on to say “…and I found it in five seconds, with Google.” But if the claim that is subsequently supported is one of: “Turns out, after a whole lot more digging, George Washington really did say it” they wouldn’t lose any face at all. They accurately reported what was known and what was not known, and then followed up with the opinion of “the quote is likely spurious.” That’s why there’s no retraction or follow-up necessary to my statement, “George Washington had it right.” Not even a footnote is necessary. It’s more proper to look at the whole spurious-quote sub-discussion as a mere distraction; and if I were to insist upon that, I doubt I’d have to change too many minds there.

They said the quote is likely-spurious. They were right not to go any further and say something foolish, like “We’re sure the quote is spurious.” Their bets are hedged. If I were a George Washington quote-expert, I’d hedge my bets too. The fact is, we just don’t know one way or another. And doubt, we see once again, is a concept y’all can’t quite grok.

So no, it’s not about y’all’s consistency or lack thereof, it’s about y’all’s Weltanschauung. It seems to be something cooked up by “experts,” but lowercase-e, power-mad, lazy, self-anointed experts. It certainly comes across that way. Let’s see: Don’t ever question the experts, never call anything they say into doubt because all these rules apply — which are to be adjudicated by the experts being doubted. Don’t hesitate to believe them uncritically, but oh by the way if they turn out to be wrong, hey, forget all about it because we’re all human. Just get past it, and believe the next thing they say, just as uncritically. I’m sure lazy-experts appreciate that kind of perpetual acquiescence, trouble is, it doesn’t work out for anyone too well out here in the real world, where we have to do things and build things that actually work. But I don’t doubt it works very well as an addition to The Zachriel Weltanschauung: An Instruction and Reference Manual for Making Mistakes and Poor Decisions More Quickly and With Greater Confidence. I don’t wish to infringe on anybody’s copyright, so where should I send the royalty checks?

Now, how about just admitting y’all misused the word “empirical.” Yeah, I know. Too much to expect.
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2014 @ 16:49
mkfreeberg: The issue is y’all’s treatment of expert opinion. Some of us out here in the real world, have actually been experts at some things, and we understand the limitations of expertise, even expertise in the field of study that is under discussion.

We recognize the limitations of expertise, and the possibility of error by experts. However, you haven’t provided one iota of evidence that the experts at Mount Vernon are wrong.

mkfreeberg: The fact is, we just don’t know one way or another.

Yes, we do. The quote is probably spurious, and there’s no evidence to indicate otherwise.

mkfreeberg: Don’t ever question the experts, never call anything they say into doubt because all these rules apply

Of course you can question the experts, but repeatedly saying “Is not” is not a particularly convincing counterargument to expert opinion.

mkfreeberg: Now, how about just admitting y’all misused the word “empirical.”

We’ve been using the word empirical in its usual sense, based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 17:40
We recognize the limitations of expertise, and the possibility of error by experts.

So sorry, that does not address what I said at all. I was not talking about error by experts.

In fact, the whole point to my previous comment was that in this case, if y’all’s experts turned out to be wrong, it wouldn’t be an error.

M: mkfreeberg: The fact is, we just don’t know one way or another.

Z: Yes, we do.

That needs to go into The Zachriel Weltanschauung: An Instruction and Reference Manual for Making Mistakes and Poor Decisions More Quickly and With Greater Confidence. Y’all think y’all know something, once again, that y’all don’t know.

I suspect that would be the thickest chapter. The perfectly valid answer of “we do not yet know” is somehow eliminated as a possibility, and the exercise becomes one of following dogmatic doctrinaire rules about selecting the most “likely” answer. And then pretending this answer must be “known,” as an absolute certainty. That seems to lay the groundwork for everything else, including this “championship” of who-has-the-best-experts.

It just doesn’t work in the real world. The healthcare.gov launch proved that.
- mkfreeberg | 05/09/2014 @ 05:08
mkfreeberg: I was not talking about error by experts.

We could be wrong. Did we misstate expert opinion?

mkfreeberg: In fact, the whole point to my previous comment was that in this case, if y’all’s experts turned out to be wrong, it wouldn’t be an error.

Are you saying the experts are wrong? On what basis?

mkfreeberg: And then pretending this answer must be “known,” as an absolute certainty.

It certainly be wrong. That’s why we keep asking you for a basis for the experts being wrong in this case, but you can’t seem to provide even an iota of evidence.
- Zachriel | 05/09/2014 @ 06:59
We could be wrong. Did we misstate expert opinion?

Maybe, maybe not. Of immediate concern though, is that y’all are relying overly much on it without respecting the limitations of what expert opinion can do, and what it’s worth.

In general, an expert-opinion’s value is directly proportional to the credibility that would be lost by the expert, if the opinion turned out to be wrong. In the case of the opinion y’all have cited, that would be a zero.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:06
mkfreeberg: Of immediate concern though, is that y’all are relying overly much on it without respecting the limitations of what expert opinion can do, and what it’s worth.

We’re more than happy to discuss the limitations of expert opinion, and the particulars of why you think they are mistaken in this case.

mkfreeberg: In general, an expert-opinion’s value is directly proportional to the credibility that would be lost by the expert, if the opinion turned out to be wrong. In the case of the opinion y’all have cited, that would be a zero.

That’s your argument, that the historical and documentary experts at the Mount Vernon association, people who have spent a lifetime studying the history and documents of George Washington know no more than your bartender or pizza delivery guy? Seriously?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:18
We’re more than happy to discuss the limitations of expert opinion, and the particulars of why you think they are mistaken in this case.

Happy ≠ Capable. Some of us have actually been experts, and given expert opinions. Honest experts would never pretend to be making any kind of guarantee with an opinion; not unless there was some reason to believe that opinion is certain. We should agree that that exception does not apply to the expert opinion y’all have offered.

Of course, if we knew who you were, then we’d be able to assess whether y’all have offered expert opinions y’all’selves, and thus should be familiar with all this. Doesn’t appear to be the case.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:29
mkfreeberg: Honest experts would never pretend to be making any kind of guarantee with an opinion; not unless there was some reason to believe that opinion is certain.

The experts didn’t claim certainty, but preponderance of the evidence.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:47
The experts didn’t claim certainty, but preponderance of the evidence.

Right. So I was correct. Even with the expert opinion, we don’t really know. Meanwhile, the quote in question is not associated with anyone but George Washington — so far as I know, anyway. Unless y’all have an example to offer there, it stands as a Washington quote.

Shame closet time.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 06:38
mkfreeberg: Even with the expert opinion, we don’t really know.

Nothing empirical can be known with absolute certainty. But the Earth still moves even if you furiously wave your hands.

mkfreeberg: it stands as a Washington quote.

Experts on George Washington say the quote is probably spurious, you have not an iota of contrary evidence, but you still insists it stands. Seriously?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 12:45
Experts on George Washington say the quote is probably spurious, you have not an iota of contrary evidence, but you still insists it stands. Seriously?

Y’all have already tried that argument, and I’ve credibly refuted it: Some of us have actually been experts, and given expert opinions. In general, an expert-opinion’s value is directly proportional to the credibility that would be lost by the expert, if the opinion turned out to be wrong. In the case of the opinion y’all have cited, that would be a zero.

I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 13:01
mkfreeberg: In general, an expert-opinion’s value is directly proportional to the credibility that would be lost by the expert, if the opinion turned out to be wrong.

In scholarship, one loses credibility by not admitting error, but you haven’t shown the experts were wrong on this or any other matter.

mkfreeberg: In the case of the opinion y’all have cited, that would be a zero.

This is why we keep coming back!

So you’re saying that experts in the history of George Washington and documentarians working at Mount Vernon have no more expertise than your bartender or your pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 13:24
mkfreeberg: In general, an expert-opinion’s value is directly proportional to the credibility that would be lost by the expert, if the opinion turned out to be wrong.

Z: In scholarship, one loses credibility by not admitting error, but you haven’t shown the experts were wrong on this or any other matter.

Ah. But the point is, that if the experts turned out to be wrong about Washington not having said this, they wouldn’t lose any credibility at all. Nor would they have deserved to. In their role as experts, they’re merely stating what is known and not known, and coming to a conclusion about it. The due respect given them for their expertise, ends where the conclusion begins.

Is there another person to whom the quote should be attributed?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 15:57
So you’re saying that experts in the history of George Washington and documentarians working at Mount Vernon have no more credibility on matters of George Washington than your bartender or your pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 18:08
So you’re saying that experts in the history of George Washington and documentarians working at Mount Vernon have no more credibility on matters of George Washington than your bartender or your pizza delivery guy?

Didn’t say anything about a pizza delivery guy, I’m just saying they could be wrong. Evidently, they’d agree. So does every other “reasonable” person.

And then there’s y’all, whistling in the wilderness, refusing to admit to the possibility.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 18:47
mkfreeberg: Didn’t say anything about a pizza delivery guy, I’m just saying they could be wrong.

Sure they could be wrong, but expert documentarians specializing in George Washington are more likely to be right than your bartender or pizza delivery guy about matters concerning George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 06:04
Severian must have missed our response above, so we are reposting it here.

Severian: As explained to y’all here, developmentally normal readers will generally interpret the statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said”

That’s correct. George Washington was a product of the Enlightenment. The statement doesn’t seem to match Washington’s diction or philosophy. However, “seems to” is not a very strong argument, so we checked with the Mount Vernon Association, and they have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 06:31
Sure they could be wrong, but expert documentarians specializing in George Washington are more likely to be right…

How likely? As a percentage?

I think y’all understand “more likely” the way a dog understands “I want more food.” Prove me wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 08:41
mkfreeberg: How likely? As a percentage?

We were using the term qualitatively, per its definition.

likely, having a high probability of occurring or being true

An expert documentarian with access to the documents and knowledge of the historical context is more likely to be right than your bartender or pizza delivery guy. Frankly, it’s hard to believe you’re arguing that the quote is genuine when experts say otherwise, and you won’t provide a reason other than that experts might be wrong.
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 10:28
We were using the term qualitatively, per its definition. likely, having a high probability of occurring or being true

Nice try! But y’all were using it comparatively: “more likely”. So it’s a reasonable question, as at least two assessments had to have been made. What is the likelihood of the less likely possibility? What is the likelihood of the more likely one? There must be an answer, sufficiently precise to support the claim.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 18:49
mkfreeberg: But y’all were using it comparatively: “more likely”.

That’s correct.

mkfreeberg: What is the likelihood of the less likely possibility?

Less likely than the Earth moves, but more likely than your bartender being a documentarian. Comparative.

This is hilarious, by the way. You’re really arguing, over and over again, that waving your hands is just as good an argument as expert opinion by historians at the Mount Vernon Association concerning matters of George Washington.
http://www.mountvernon.org/
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 05:13
Less likely than the Earth moves, but more likely than your bartender being a documentarian. Comparative.

But of course, you could quantify the probability that the Earth moves with a percentage. It wouldn’t be any less than ninety, right? And you could quantify the probability that my bartender is a documentarian. No less than twenty-five, right? Since ninety is greater than twenty-five, we can say “more likely.”

This is hilarious, by the way. You’re really arguing, over and over again, that waving your hands…

Actually, I’m just finding out if I can get get y’all to provide support for y’all’s own claim about “more likely.” It seems y’all don’t have any.

I’ll have to add a chapter on using meaningful phrases like “more likely,” as mere window-dressing, to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 05:59
mkfreeberg: But of course, you could quantify the probability that the Earth moves with a percentage. It wouldn’t be any less than ninety, right?

And what would that number be then? Be sure to show your work. Probability is a type of statistical measure, and you can’t determine probability without knowing all the terms involved.

mkfreeberg: I’m just finding out if I can get get y’all to provide support for y’all’s own claim about “more likely.”

An expert is defined as a person who has comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. This expertise is typically based on research and experience in that field. As such, an expert by virtue of credential, education, training, and experience has specific knowledge of a subject beyond that of an average person.
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 06:07
And what would that number be then? Be sure to show your work.

I’m asking y’all. Y’all are the ones who made the claim. Y’all can back up y’all’s claims, can’t y’all?
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 21:31
mkfreeberg: I’m asking y’all. Y’all are the ones who made the claim.

In which case, we already answered. No quantitative probability can be calculated, but that doesn’t mean expert documentarians are not more likely to know about documentary evidence than your pizza delivery guy.

Your binary thinking is acting up again.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 04:03
We sometimes can provide comparative likelihoods. Generally, the closer to the subject of expertise, the more likely to be correct. For instance, when it comes to knowing where to find the metacarpus, an orthopaedist is more likely to know than a general practitioner is more likely to know than a practical nurse is more likely to know than a pizza delivery guy. However, if you want to know the fastest way to get to the McCarthy house with the pizza still hot, well, you know whom to ask.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 04:35
In which case, we already answered. No quantitative probability can be calculated, but that doesn’t mean expert documentarians are not more likely to know about documentary evidence than your pizza delivery guy.

Your binary thinking is acting up again.

There is: “There are reasonable increments between those two extremes.” And then there is, “Those two extremes must actually be the same, any differences between them illusory, since the increments prove they can co-exist.” Those are two different things.

I should add a chapter on that to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 06:11
mkfreeberg: “There are reasonable increments between those two extremes.”

Yes, we provided such reasonable increments. Generally, the closer to the subject of expertise, the more likely to be correct. For instance, when it comes to knowing where to find the metacarpus, an orthopaedist is more likely to know than a general practitioner is more likely to know than a practical nurse is more likely to know than a pizza delivery guy.

So a professional documentarians and historians experienced with matters concerning George Washington are more likely to be correct about matters concerning George Washington than your pizza delivery guy.
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 10:56
Generally, the closer to the subject of expertise, the more likely to be correct.

But, y’all have already conceded that “more likely” is a meaningless concept to y’all. It’s just a phrase y’all use as a glittering generality, it doesn’t mean anything.
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 18:19
mkfreeberg: But, y’all have already conceded that “more likely” is a meaningless concept to y’all.

No, we said it is qualitative, and agreed with you that it is comparative. For instance, when it comes to knowing where to find the metacarpus,

Orthopaedist > General Practitioner > Practical Nurse > Pizza delivery guy.

Or are you saying an orthopaedist is not more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 03:50
M: But, y’all have already conceded that “more likely” is a meaningless concept to y’all.

Z: No, we said it is qualitative, and agreed with you that it is comparative. For instance, when it comes to knowing where to find the metacarpus,

Right, y’all wanted y’all’s argument to benefit from the “punch” of that phrase “more likely,” but didn’t want that claim to be measured or validated in any way. Just window dressing.
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 05:20
mkfreeberg: Right, y’all wanted y’all’s argument to benefit from the “punch” of that phrase “more likely,” but didn’t want that claim to be measured or validated in any way.

Are you saying an orthopaedist is not more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 08:17
Are you saying an orthopaedist is not more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy?

I’m saying, it’s impossible to evaluate the validity of the claim y”all are making, since it’s impossible to evaluate what the claim is. Y’all have made it plainly clear that y’all don’t mean “more likely” when y’all say “more likely.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 17:51
mkfreeberg: I’m saying, it’s impossible to evaluate the validity of the claim y”all are making, since it’s impossible to evaluate what the claim is.

Your position depends on you not being able to say whether an orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy? Okay. That’s what we wanted to illustrate in your position, and in your comprehension generally.
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 04:38
I see this morning the malware experts are saying Michelle Malkin’s site is a bad one, likely to harm any computer visiting it. Those are the experts talking, they must be “more likely” to be right about this than a pizza delivery guy, right?
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 06:48
mkfreeberg: I see this morning the malware experts are saying Michelle Malkin’s site is a bad one, likely to harm any computer visiting it.

Yes, it is more likely to be correct than the pizza delivery guy, but that is not saying it will be infallibly correct. You would need more information to properly judge the situation. Are there no hues in your world?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 08:15
Are there no hues in your world?

Some decisions don’t have hues at all.

Go back and read the Marbury decision. Note that, if increments could be allowed between “the Constitution yields to the lesser statute” and “the lesser statute yields to the Constitution,” the entire logical foundation under the decision would crumble away and the decision itself would become a nullity.

It applies because, and only because, of the Law of Excluded Middle. Either-Or. Also, notice how Chief Justice Marshall pays serious and unfaltering respect to the opposing side; it is necessary for him to do this in order to destroy it. He does this by inspecting in great detail where this kind of thinking would lead us.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 18:47
mkfreeberg: Some decisions don’t have hues at all.

The term freedom is a word with a long history and many hues.

mkfreeberg: Go back and read the Marbury decision.

We have. It says the Courts have the duty “to say what the law is”, and that “the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature”. The Courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not protect threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, or virgin sacrifice.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 03:04
Note that, if increments could be allowed between “the Constitution yields to the lesser statute” and “the lesser statute yields to the Constitution,” the entire logical foundation under the decision would crumble away and the decision itself would become a nullity.

I’ll have to add a chapter on “Reading what we want to read, and only what we want to read” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 04:44
mkfreeberg: Note that, if increments could be allowed between “the Constitution yields to the lesser statute” and “the lesser statute yields to the Constitution,” the entire logical foundation under the decision would crumble away and the decision itself would become a nullity.

That’s not the question or the point. We both agree that the Constitution holds sway over statute. The question is what does the First Amendment mean when it says “freedom”. You’ve claim it means the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, inciting riots, plotting crimes, giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, or virgin sacrifice. That’s an absurd position that most people will rightly reject.

By the way, is an orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 10:21
That’s not the question or the point. We both agree that the Constitution holds sway over statute. The question is what does the First Amendment mean when it says “freedom”. You’ve claim it means the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, inciting riots…

Yeah, I think everyone reading is fully up on the monologue y’all want to give.

But, yes, it is very much a central question to the whole dialogue whether or not incremental measurements are relevant here…or, elsewhere. When all’s said and done, it turns out there are some questions in life that have a yes-or-no answer. The Law of the Excluded Middle is one of the fundamental laws of thought. There are reasons why.

Furthermore: Those who believe in shades of gray, are not moderates on these issues. They are the extremists. “There are always shades of gray, in everything” is an extreme statement, when the rubber hits the road. “No, some questions have a yes-or-no answer” is a moderate statement.

A conservative and a liberal were on a park bench, talking. “There are no absolute realities anywhere!” the liberal insisted. The conservative said “Really, you’re absolutely sure of that?” The liberal said “Absolutely, yes!” Then he wanted to know why the conservative had a funny look on his face…
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 19:03
Zachriel: The question is what does the First Amendment mean when it says “freedom”.

mkfreeberg: But, yes, it is very much a central question to the whole dialogue whether or not incremental measurements are relevant here…or, elsewhere.

You agreed elsewhere that freedom of religion does have some limitations, that Congress can prohibit virgin sacrifice. Presumably, freedom of speech doesn’t mean Congress can’t pass laws concerning divulging friendly troop movements to the enemy.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 04:59
You agreed elsewhere that freedom of religion does have some limitations, that Congress can prohibit virgin sacrifice. Presumably, freedom of speech doesn’t mean Congress can’t pass laws concerning divulging friendly troop movements to the enemy.

No, y’all inferred I was agreeing, elsewhere, and I corrected y’all’s bad logic.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:02
mkfreeberg: No, y’all inferred I was agreeing, elsewhere, and I corrected y’all’s bad logic.

You’re right. Your comments elsewhere were incoherent. You oscillate between an absurd absolutest position that there are not exceptions to freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion, to trying to avoid making any clear statement of your position.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 07:22
Your comments elsewhere were incoherent.

I don’t know of anybody, anywhere, with an actual name, who wasn’t able to figure out what I was saying.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 12:33
mkfreeberg: I don’t know of anybody, anywhere, with an actual name, who wasn’t able to figure out what I was saying.

By the way, is an orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 12:42
By the way, is an orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy?

Who’s incoherent now?
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 15:00
mkfreeberg: Who’s incoherent now?

You had said you can’t tell whether is an orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 19:01
You had said you can’t tell whether is an orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy.

Not sure how to discuss “more likely” to a collective of anonymous individuals who recognize no measurable meaning in those two words.

Evidently, in y’all’s world it is nothing more than a personal decision. “I choose to believe X over Y because X is more likely to be right.” Well okay. Nobody is stopping y’all from externalizing y’all’s reasoning processes. Go ahead.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 04:52
mkfreeberg: Not sure how to discuss “more likely” to a collective of anonymous individuals who recognize no measurable meaning in those two words.

We have no problem understanding the term “more likely”. It’s more likely a quantum physicist will understand quantum mechanics than a cab driver. Don’t know the exact odds, but that isn’t necessary to make a qualitative statement. It’s more likely to rain in Paris than in Timbuktu on any given day. Don’t know the exact figures offhand, but you can probably look it up somewhere.

Do you really think it is debatable whether a orthopaedist is more likely to know where to find the metacarpus than a pizza delivery guy? You’re just being contrary, because you know the answer. Yet, after a dozen requests, you still can’t say.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 05:28
We have no problem understanding the term “more likely”.

Yes, y’all do. I asked “how much more likely” when the term was used, and immediately ran into useless radio-static. Y’all have no actual level-of-potential in mind when y’all use the term, thus, y’all are using it as a glittering generality and nothing more.

Experts are wrong quite often. I get that y’all don’t want anybody to think about that, but we should dispense with the chicanery that that has anything to do with actual likelihood.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 05:47
mkfreeberg: I asked “how much more likely” when the term was used, and immediately ran into useless radio-static.

We provided you examples of the qualitative use of “more likely”, which you decided to ignore. Are you saying it’s not more likely a quantum physicist will understand quantum mechanics than a cab driver? Are you really saying you can’t tell? If your child is sick, do you talk to a medical doctor or your plumber?

mkfreeberg: Experts are wrong quite often.

Sure, but they are more likely to be correct about matters within their own valid field of study, especially when there is a consensus within that field, than a layperson. If you want to know how to mix drinks, you talk to a bartender. If you want to find your metacarpus, you talk to an orthopaedist.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:05
We provided you examples of the qualitative use of “more likely”, which you decided to ignore.

Were these examples actually saying something meaningful? We established that y’all were just using the term “qualitatively,” in other words, as mere window-dressing.

What y’all seem to be missing is that this other word, “more,” is comparative, and therefore inherently quantitative. Y’all are reduced to saying “A is greater than B” and, in response to the obvious questions that come back “How much is A? How much is B?” responding, essentially, “we don’t know and we don’t care.”

Glad I asked, then.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 06:14
mkfreeberg: Were these examples actually saying something meaningful?

Sure, they’re meaningful.

mkfreeberg: We established that y’all were just using the term “qualitatively,” in other words, as mere window-dressing.

Qualitative doesn’t mean “window-dressing”. It still allows comparatives. For instance, when it comes to knowing where to find the metacarpus,
Orthopaedist > General Practitioner > Practical Nurse > Pizza delivery guy.

mkfreeberg: What y’all seem to be missing is that this other word, “more,” is comparative, and therefore inherently quantitative.

Comparative doesn’t mean quantitative. The former just requires ordering, the latter requires a value.

Do you really still want to pretend that an orthopaedist isn’t more likely to know where the metacarpus is than a pizza delivery guy?
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:30
Comparative doesn’t mean quantitative. The former just requires ordering, the latter requires a value.

The ordering requires a value.

Oh, I suppose we could think up one exception to that: Y’all could order something a certain way just because y’all feel like it, like ordering spices in a cabinet. But that’s a preference and not a measurement, and doesn’t actually demonstrate anything.

So, yeah. Window-dressing.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 22:06
mkfreeberg: Oh, I suppose we could think up one exception to that: Y’all could order something a certain way just because y’all feel like it, like ordering spices in a cabinet.

So if your kid is sick, you can’t say whether a doctor is more likely to be able to treat her sickness than your pizza delivery guy. Odd that.
- Zachriel | 05/20/2014 @ 05:07
So if your kid is sick, you can’t say whether a doctor is more likely to be able to treat her sickness than your pizza delivery guy. Odd that.

Y’all’s formulation doesn’t even work qualifiably. Suppose a layman who had actually explored the pyramids, became embroiled in a disagreement with a professor of Egyptology — who had never been to Egypt. Suppose the disagreement was about what’s written over a doorway to a pyramid the layman had visited personally. And saw for himself. And had pictures. The “expert’s” knowledge should prevail in that case, just because the expert had been taught by another expert to repeat it?

Someone seems to have led y’all astray on what expertise really is. If it meant some personal endowment that would obviate the need to ever learn anything, that would essentially obliterate science. Maybe that’s the point.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2014 @ 19:08
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s formulation doesn’t even work qualifiably.

So you’re saying that when your child is sick, you don’t seek out a doctor, but order pizza instead.

mkfreeberg: Suppose a layman who had actually explored the pyramids, became embroiled in a disagreement with a professor of Egyptology — who had never been to Egypt. Suppose the disagreement was about what’s written over a doorway to a pyramid the layman had visited personally. And saw for himself. And had pictures. The “expert’s” knowledge should prevail in that case, just because the expert had been taught by another expert to repeat it?

No, evidence trumps an appeal to authority. However, in this case, the layperson must have considerable knowledge of Egyptology to be able to read hieroglyphics.

An appeal to authority is valid when

* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.

The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

It’s not as if we haven’t covered this ground before.
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 06:07
It’s not as if we haven’t covered this ground before.

Didn’t say it was. Our conflict is between the use of critical thinking, and the adherence to a set of not-specifically-cited rules that involve some sort of dogmatic vertical-taxonomy of appeals. And there was a sixth bullet others made known to y’all that y’all had left off y’all’s copy of this not-specifically-cited rulebook. Why did y’all never add it back in?
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 06:39
mkfreeberg: Didn’t say it was.

No. You just act as if we haven’t.

The distant past
Z: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

Last year:
mk: The “expert’s” knowledge should prevail in that case, just because the expert had been taught by another expert to repeat it?
Z: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

Last month:
mk: The “expert’s” knowledge should prevail in that case, just because the expert had been taught by another expert to repeat it?
Z: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

Last week:
mk: The “expert’s” knowledge should prevail in that case, just because the expert had been taught by another expert to repeat it?
Z: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

Today:
mk: The “expert’s” knowledge should prevail in that case, just because the expert had been taught by another expert to repeat it?
Z: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

mkfreeberg: And there was a sixth bullet others made known to y’all that y’all had left off y’all’s copy of this not-specifically-cited rulebook.

“The authority in question must be identified” is implicit in “cited authority”. Do we need to post what constitutes a valid citation, or are you going to simply ignore that too?
- Zachriel | 05/21/2014 @ 06:59
Not ignoring it, just treating it as what it is: A guide for the proles, to treat expert opinion in a way that is most convenient to the experts. The lazy experts who can’t or won’t bring solid evidence of their expertise.

After all, your credo is built all around that: Believe what the experts say, uncritically, don’t argue against it, but in the aftermath don’t blame the experts if their advice doesn’t pan out — because hey, we’re all human and we all make mistakes. Get past it and go back to believing what the experts say. Again. Uncritically. Again.

At any rate, it’s at least as proper to attribute the “Government is fire” quote to George Washington, as it is to attribute the “up with which I shall not put” quote to Winston Churchill. So there’s nothing in need of correction in the post (way, way, way) up above.
- mkfreeberg | 05/21/2014 @ 19:00
mkfreeberg: At any rate, it’s at least as proper to attribute the “Government is fire” quote to George Washington, as it is to attribute the “up with which I shall not put” quote to Winston Churchill.

We’re happy to correct that to “commonly attributed to Winston Churchill”(see how it’s done?), though it is not completely without provenance.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002670.html

The difference is that the attribution to Churchill is just something fun, while the attribution to Washington is meant to add his imprimatur to the thought, when it’s something he almost certainly didn’t say.

Still like your joke about the preposition, though. “Fail-buzzer: A preposition is not something you end a sentence with.” Heh.

mkfreeberg: After all, your credo is built all around that: Believe what the experts say, uncritically, don’t argue against it,

That is not our position. However, an argument requires marshaling evidence, not just hand waving—no matter how vigorous.

mkfreeberg: A guide for the proles, to treat expert opinion in a way that is most convenient to the experts.

So you’re saying that when your child is sick, you don’t seek out a doctor, but order pizza instead.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 05:32
The difference is that the attribution to Churchill is just something fun, while the attribution to Washington is meant to add his imprimatur to the thought, when it’s something he almost certainly didn’t say.

Nice reach! Makes my arm muscles sore just watching it.

Is there someone else to whom the government/fire quotation should be attributed?
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 06:24
mkfreeberg: Is there someone else to whom the government/fire quotation should be attributed?

Have no idea, but it almost certainly didn’t originate with Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 06:33
Have no idea, but…

Then there’s no correction needed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 16:55
Imkfreeberg: Then there’s no correction needed.

That’s nonsensical. According to that, if we don’t know the origin of a statement, you can attribute it to whomever you choose.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/22/2014 @ 17:06
That’s nonsensical. According to that, if we don’t know the origin of a statement, you can attribute it to whomever you choose.

Y’all were given a chance to attribute the quote to another name, and have no other name to offer.

No correction needed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/22/2014 @ 20:08
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 03:11
“Milton Berle, George Burns, Red Buttons, Norm Crosby, Jerry Lewis, Buddy Hackett, Pat Cooper, Freddie Roman, Jonthan Winters…”
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 17:45
mkfreeberg: “Milton Berle, George Burns, Red Buttons, Norm Crosby, Jerry Lewis, Buddy Hackett, Pat Cooper, Freddie Roman, Jonthan Winters…”

They were all born after George Washington, so Washington said it first.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:10
They were all born after George Washington, so Washington said it first.

If y’all say so. But the “Fire” quote has been attributed long and often to President Washington.

And, to nobody else.
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:29
mkfreeberg: But the “Fire” quote has been attributed long and often to President Washington.

The quote is not attributed to Washington until long after his death.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/23/2014 @ 18:34
The quote is not attributed to Washington until long after his death.

As early as 1902. Were any of these experts around in 1902?
- mkfreeberg | 05/23/2014 @ 18:51
mkfreeberg: As early as 1902.

So the first reference to the quote was nearly a century after his death.

mkfreeberg: Were any of these experts around in 1902?

No, but there is a large volume of documents from the period, including George Washington’s own writings, and people who recorded what George Washington said. None of it is similar to the purported quote, nor even of the same diction . It reads like something from the Romantic, not the Enlightenment, and Washington was a far cry from a Romantic.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 05:50
So the first reference to the quote was nearly a century after his death.

More like the earliest thing they found. Now we’ve located the source of our disagreement.

Failure to find X ≠ success finding !X.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 07:36
mkfreeberg: Failure to find X ≠ success finding !X.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 07:42
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.

So y’all fail to distinguish between “we know it doesn’t exist” and “we couldn’t find it.” Fail to comprehend the simple concept of ignorance.

How does one learn anything at all, without understanding ignorance? Why should anyone respect the opinions of a collective of anonymous individuals who can’t learn anything?
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 07:57
mkfreeberg: So y’all fail to distinguish between “we know it doesn’t exist” and “we couldn’t find it.”

How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”? Really, he’s been robbed by other stand-ups for years. You should really see the skit he does with his false teeth. It’s hilarious!
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 08:02
How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”? Really, he’s been robbed by other stand-ups for years. You should really see the skit he does with his false teeth. It’s hilarious!

I think supposing he said the thing about fire & government, is different than supposing he said “I’m here all week, try the veal.”

If y’all can’t see the difference between those two things, I’m at a loss to explain it — and, no, that does not mean they are the same thing. We live in a big universe full of things y’all can’t understand, and yet, they’re still there. And true. Even if y’all can’t understand them.

One of those things is uncertainty. Another is ignorance. Just because y’all don’t understand those things doesn’t mean they do not exist.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 10:27
You didn’t attempt to answer the question. How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”?
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 13:32
You didn’t attempt to answer the question. How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”?

That’s okay. Frankly, on the list of questions I’m going to make an effort to answer, I don’t see any reason why that one should rate highly. There hasn’t been any serious suggestion that he said such a thing. Also, if he did, I haven’t made an assertion that he hasn’t, or for that matter that he has. Therefore there’s no need to care.
- mkfreeberg | 05/24/2014 @ 17:23
You didn’t attempt to answer the question. How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”?
- Zachriel | 05/24/2014 @ 19:42
That’s okay. Frankly, on the list of questions I’m going to make an effort to answer, I don’t see any reason why that one should rate highly. There hasn’t been any serious suggestion that he said such a thing. Also, if he did, I haven’t made an assertion that he hasn’t, or for that matter that he has. Therefore there’s no need to care.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 00:14
That’s fine.

“I’m here all week, try the veal”? — George Washington
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 05:15
Look, this is me not attempting to answer the question again.

And at the end of it, it’s a very real possibility Washington said what I quoted, and not what y’all “quoted.” After all the “You didn’t answer the question” liberal-foot-stomping, all the “experts say and who are you to question” — that remains the case.

So at the end of it, the “likely spurious” thing hasn’t got anything going for it at all.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 06:57
mkfreeberg: And at the end of it, it’s a very real possibility Washington said what I quoted, and not what y’all “quoted.”

The only evidence you have provided indicated it was probably not a valid attribution. That’s YOUR citation.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 09:17
The only evidence you have provided indicated it was probably not a valid attribution. That’s YOUR citation.

It says we don’t know.

Once AGAIN — if y’all cannot understand the concept of “don’t know,” that is not anybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:28
mkfreeberg: It says we don’t know.

It says the first known mention was by the found of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy. It says it’s been falsely attributed to Washington’s Farewell Address. It says the foremost expert on quotations finds the quote apocryphal. And it’s filed under disputed quotations. The only citation you’ve provided says it’s disputed, and considered apocryphal by experts. That undercuts any claim that the quote is authentic.

mkfreeberg: Once AGAIN — if y’all cannot understand the concept of “don’t know,” that is not anybody else’s problem.

Okay. So you will change your original attribution from “George Washington” to “don’t know”.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 10:42
That undercuts any claim that the quote is authentic.

They looked, and could not find an earlier citation.

It is almost certain there is an earlier history to it that they weren’t able to find. That’s how history works; sometimes you can find the earlier documentation, sometimes you can’t.

Once AGAIN — if y’all can’t understand this, it isn’t anybody else’s problem.

Okay. So you will change your original attribution from “George Washington” to “don’t know”.

Y’all can imagine me doing that. But y’all haven’t produced anybody else to whom it should be attributed.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:49
mkfreeberg: They looked, and could not find an earlier citation.

And it was cited in a non-scientific journal. It’s apocryphal.

mkfreeberg: That’s how history works; sometimes you can find the earlier documentation, sometimes you can’t.

And sometimes people make up stories to fit a narrative, then people repeat them without regard to their veracity, usually because it confirms their preconceptions.

mkfreeberg: Y’all can imagine me doing that. But y’all haven’t produced anybody else to whom it should be attributed.

“Don’t know” you said. You just said it. Right there.
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 10:53
And it was cited in a non-scientific journal. It’s apocryphal.

Right, everything that isn’t put out by The High Priests is apocrypha. Got it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/25/2014 @ 10:59
mkfreeberg: Right, everything that isn’t put out by The High Priests is apocrypha.

So you will be changing your original attribution from “George Washington” to “don’t know”?
- Zachriel | 05/25/2014 @ 11:43
So you will be changing your original attribution from “George Washington” to “don’t know”?

If I were to start doing that, where would I stop? That would be the correct answer with anything out of history, would it not?

This would fall under the category of y’all not being able to comprehend that ignorance is the default human condition. We’re all born in ignorance, we’re all going to die that way. Best we can hope to accomplish is to learn a tiny percentage of all there is to be learned.

That’s why it is so disastrous to come up with these magical-alchemy incantations for winning-every-argument, never changing one’s mind about anything, re-litigating the same matters over and over again — deploying the “perfect defense” against the “threat” of anyone else ever pointing anything out.
- mkfreeberg | 05/27/2014 @ 04:00
mkfreeberg: If I were to start doing that, where would I stop?

When you stop making and then supporting statements you have evidence to believe are inaccurate and unsupportable.

mkfreeberg: This would fall under the category of y’all not being able to comprehend that ignorance is the default human condition.

Humans are ignorant of most everything in the universe, and even what they know, they know only tentatively. That doesn’t excuse saying the world is flat when the evidence indicates otherwise.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
- Zachriel | 05/27/2014 @ 05:16
When you stop making and then supporting statements you have evidence to believe are inaccurate and unsupportable.

This “WM” person based the quote on something, either said or written, which that person did not cite — much as y’all continue not to cite the source of y’all’s five rules for appeal-to-authority. OOPS. Guess it’s okay to leave citations off of things after all!

But anyway, there are two possibilities here: The 1902 statement about what the first President said, was based on nothing at all, and was essentially a lie. Or, it was based on something. There aren’t any other alternatives.

What evidence have y’all brought that it was an out-and-out lie? Have y’all’s experts gone on record to say “If there was something, then surely we would have found it”? That would be a very silly thing to say, and would betray a Weltanschauung entirely suitable for researching, or even being interested in, history.
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 03:41
mkfreeberg: This “WM” person based the quote on something, either said or written

WM? Who are you talking about?

mkfreeberg: The 1902 statement about what the first President said, was based on nothing at all, and was essentially a lie. Or, it was based on something.

A tale, like the cherry tree.

mkfreeberg: There aren’t any other alternatives.

There’s your black-and-white thinking again. Or maybe it’s a lack of imagination.

mkfreeberg: What evidence have y’all brought that it was an out-and-out lie?

We didn’t say it was a lie. We said it didn’t comport with Washington’s diction or philosophy, and we checked with an expert resource, and having researched the issue, they consider the quote spurious. That doesn’t mean the experts must be right, however, it should be enough to make you reconsider your attribution, and if you don’t find any strong support, to correct the attribution. It shouldn’t have been a big issue; just one of those minor corrections people make.
- Zachriel | 05/28/2014 @ 05:55
WM? Who are you talking about?

If y’all had put y’all-selves in a position of understanding about this earliest attribution, y’all would know already. Y’all have been going ’round and ’round and ’round about this, and y’all’s position is very clearly that this must have been a fabrication — I just naturally assumed from all this passion I was seeing, that y’all had at least taken the trouble to go look it up. Page 465.

Y’all mean to say y’all hadn’t taken the very first step of critical thinking, referring to the source, and finding out who y’all are claiming was some kind of a liar? That’s astounding. It implies the only basis y’all have for this, is that person’s failure to cite something — which is something y’all also fail to do, every single time y’all put up y’all’s five rules about appeals-to-authority.

Bunch of anonymous busybodies who can’t be told anything who don’t even follow their own rules. Why am I supposed to care what y’all think again?
- mkfreeberg | 05/28/2014 @ 17:36
mkfreeberg: Page 465.

So you’re basing your claim on an attribution by “W.M.” made over a hundred years after Washington supposedly said it.

mkfreeberg: Y’all mean to say y’all hadn’t taken the very first step of critical thinking, referring to the source, and finding out who y’all are claiming was some kind of a liar?

We didn’t say it was a lie. We said it didn’t comport with Washington’s diction or philosophy, and we checked with an expert resource, and having researched the issue, they consider the quote spurious.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 05:54
mkfreeberg: Why am I supposed to care what y’all think again?

It has nothing to do with Zachriel, but your own credibility, that when a simple misattribution is pointed out, that you will spend weeks arguing rather than simply correct the misattribution.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 05:55
So you’re basing your claim on an attribution by “W.M.” made over a hundred years after Washington supposedly said it.

Are y’all claiming “W.M.” simply fabricated the quote, on the spot, in 1902? Seems unlikely.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:00
mkfreeberg: Are y’all claiming “W.M.” simply fabricated the quote, on the spot, in 1902? Seems unlikely.

No, it was probably a misremembered story, like the cherry tree.
- Zachriel | 05/29/2014 @ 18:07
No, it was probably a misremembered story, like the cherry tree.

Interesting theory.

Y’all are welcome to believe in it, as far as I’m concerned. In the final analysis, we don’t really know.

And “experts” are just as ignorant about the unknown, as non-experts are. When they don’t know something, their expertise doesn’t mean anything.
- mkfreeberg | 05/29/2014 @ 18:17
mkfreeberg: Interesting theory.

Which shows that your black-and-white, liar-or-true, statement above was lacking.

mkfreeberg: Y’all are welcome to believe in it, as far as I’m concerned. In the final analysis, we don’t really know.

No, we don’t know the origin of the quote. As there is a large historical record concerning George Washington, and as the quote doesn’t fit anything else he said, the quote is unsupported and probably spurious.

mkfreeberg: And “experts” are just as ignorant about the unknown, as non-experts are.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 02:36
No, we don’t know the origin of the quote. As there is a large historical record concerning George Washington, and as the quote doesn’t fit anything else he said…

Now, I went back and checked this. That particular statement is not accurate. Of course, y’all have vacillated back and forth about whether this claim is a reference to Washington’s feelings about government, or the style of his written word. In neither case is y’all’s claim accurate. Y’all haven’t expounded on how y’all see it this way, because y’all can’t. It isn’t supported by evidence.

But, not only are y’all unaware of the origin of the quote, y’all are also unaware of who made the first record of it. Y’all relied so much on the “experts” that y’all got caught, just now, not even bothering to go look at the subject of the argument before arguing about it…endlessly, cyclically, uselessly.

Look, it’s very simple. Two possibilities exist: “W.M.” heard something or saw something, and in good faith made a written record that the first President said this thing — or else, “W.M.” fabricated the quote on the spot. Well, I haven’t seen anyone accuse him or her of fabricating it on the spot. If y’all want to make that accusation, it isn’t a very credible one since y’all are ignorant of who y’all are accusing.

So if W.M. relied on some bit of evidence in making this claim, that means the experts reached the limit of their resources in researching this, but did not reach the end of the story. They lost track, and they made a guess. We can believe their guess, or not. It is mendacious to argue that we MUST accept their opinion because they’re “experts,” when they haven’t been able to find the answer.

Much of history is this way. We start out knowing nothing, then we collect evidence. The evidence is limited to 1) what has managed to survive, and 2) chain of custody (he said that she said that he said that she saw it somewhere). The trail very often runs cold.

If we really wanted to make sure our historical record was free of contamination, first thing we’d do is make sure none of the historical “experts” are progressive, since it’s human to allow one’s political leanings to taint one’s findings. And lefties by their very nature — and according to y’all’s definition of the ideology, as well as mine — don’t give a rip about what really happened, it’s in the past.
- mkfreeberg | 05/30/2014 @ 06:14
mkfreeberg: Of course, y’all have vacillated back and forth about whether this claim is a reference to Washington’s feelings about government, or the style of his written word.

It’s not vacillation, but two aspects of the question.

mkfreeberg: Look, it’s very simple. Two possibilities exist: “W.M.” heard something or saw something, and in good faith made a written record that the first President said this thing

W.M. was almost certainly not a witness to George Washington. W.M. may have heard a story from someone, and that gets into the game of telephone.

mkfreeberg: It is mendacious to argue that we MUST accept their opinion because they’re “experts,” when they haven’t been able to find the answer.

No. You don’t have to accept their opinion. However, if you want to credibly argue they are wrong, you have to provide evidence. You attributed it, but haven’t been able to support the attribution. You may as well say

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.

mkfreeberg: We start out knowing nothing, then we collect evidence.

You haven’t provided any evidence.

mkfreeberg: The evidence is limited to 1) what has managed to survive, and 2) chain of custody (he said that she said that he said that she saw it somewhere). The trail very often runs cold.

It turns out that there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and his times. He was a prolific writer, penning at least 18,000 letters. You can find large collections of original documents concerning George Washington at Mount Vernon, the University of Virginia, and the Library of Congress.
- Zachriel | 05/30/2014 @ 07:47
W.M. was almost certainly not a witness to George Washington. W.M. may have heard a story from someone, and that gets into the game of telephone.

Another game of “We fail to understand, so we win”? Ah yes, many great decisions have been made this way throughout human history. Following is an exhaustive list of them: .

I’ll type it in nice and slow so y’all can keep up. The expert-debunkers have made it clear that they were not able to find a reference earlier than W.M.’s. If W.M. heard a story, even if it was a story of suspicious origin, that means there was something pre-existing that escaped the researcher’s discovery — by their own admission. Not to suggest shoddy research on their part. It would simply show that they were not able to capture all of the relevant evidence.

This does not refute their finding. But it refutes the strength & certainty of it. That’s how most historical research turns out. We start off not knowing; if we’re very, very lucky we find something that makes the unknown into a known. But it usually doesn’t turn out that way.

And it didn’t turn out that way here. So drop a line if y’all find out someone else made up the quote. In the meantime, since y’all feel so strongly about the conclusion reached by y’all’s experts, I think y’all should not attribute the quote to George Washington. But, we live in a world with other people, who might disagree. In this case, such a disagreement would not be unreasonable, no matter how strongly y’all may desire to make it so.

If y’all think there’s more to it than that, I don’t think an Internet debate is the proper forum for it. Perhaps a support group?
- mkfreeberg | 05/31/2014 @ 16:47
mkfreeberg: The expert-debunkers have made it clear that they were not able to find a reference earlier than W.M.’s.

That is correct. There is no reliable source for the quote.

mkfreeberg: But it refutes the strength & certainty of it.

It’s not a certainty, just a hefty preponderance of the evidence.

mkfreeberg: In this case, such a disagreement would not be unreasonable, no matter how strongly y’all may desire to make it so.

Disagreement is unreasonable when it lacks reasonable support.
- Zachriel | 05/31/2014 @ 18:14
It’s not a certainty, just a hefty preponderance of the evidence.

Y’all are right, if by “hefty” what y’all mean to say is “incomplete.”

The researchers themselves do not know the origin of the quote. It almost certainly is not with W.M., and if it is not, then the claim predates 1902.

Suppose just for sake of discussion, if y’all can, that George Washington did not write this down but was heard to say something close to it during a hallway conversation, by someone else who also did not write it down. But recalled it many years later. And then wrote it down, in something that managed to find its way to this W.M. person — and then was lost.

Y’all could characterize that as a near-impossibility. But, y’all would be wrong. Most people who live real life, run into half-a-dozen or more things before breakfast that they’d like to write down, and don’t manage to in the moment. Heck, I’ve got forty tabs open in my browser right-freakin’-now of things I’d like to get bookmarked, and have not yet managed to. That’s entirely normal.
- mkfreeberg | 06/01/2014 @ 07:46
mkfreeberg: Suppose just for sake of discussion, if y’all can, that George Washington did not write this down but was heard to say something close to it during a hallway conversation, by someone else who also did not write it down. But recalled it many years later. And then wrote it down, in something that managed to find its way to this W.M. person — and then was lost.

Okay. Let’s suppose.

mkfreeberg: Y’all could characterize that as a near-impossibility.

Not necessarily, but it would still be poorly supported.

* No documentary evidence before “W.M.” quotes it in an Christian Science journal.
* A century after Washington’s death.
* It’s a crafted statement.
* Crafted statements of that sort are nearly always part of formal speeches, which would probably have been recorded.
* It is sometimes inaccurately attributed to his farewell address.
* It doesn’t fit Washington’s diction.
* It reads like something out of the Romantic, not the Enlightenment.
* Your own resource considers it apocryphal.
* “I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/01/2014 @ 09:15
Well, I’m convinced. If y’all are ever tempted to attribute the statement to George Washington, y’all shouldn’t, since it’s clear y’all think W.M. made up the quote on the spot.

It’s certainly reasonable to think the quote has been fabricated by someone else, even in the absence of a name being offered for a more correct attribution. It’s also reasonable, no matter how much y’all may wish it were not, to entertain the idea that George Washington actually said it. It’s a situation in which both oppositional presumptions are reasonable.

Evidently, the fact that there is an anonymous group of unknown size of Internet busybodies who just can’t comprehend situations like that one, should compel me to categorize this along with provably false quotes. That, and the collective is willing to argue, endlessly, to persuade me to think of it that way — even when none among the anonymous busybodies ever bothered to look at the source material, and evidently the entire group was left asking “Who is WM?” during such an endless discussion. Well, my goodness. Y’all must have burned away countless calories and hours correcting the liberals who were sure Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house!”
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 04:10
mkfreeberg: If y’all are ever tempted to attribute the statement to George Washington, y’all shouldn’t, since it’s clear y’all think W.M. made up the quote on the spot.

We already stated that’s not our view. Not sure why you would purposefully misrepresent our views.

mkfreeberg: It’s also reasonable, no matter how much y’all may wish it were not, to entertain the idea that George Washington actually said it.

Sure, go ahead and “entertain the idea”. But it doesn’t hold up as a valid attribution.

mkfreeberg: It’s a situation in which both oppositional presumptions are reasonable.

Sure! Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Say No More

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.

mkfreeberg: Evidently, the fact that there is an anonymous group of unknown size of Internet busybodies who just can’t comprehend situations like that one, should compel me to categorize this along with provably false quotes.

Well, no. You should categorize it as probably spurious because that’s what experts historians who have studied the subject, including through access to original documents, have determined.
- Zachriel | 06/02/2014 @ 05:58
We already stated that’s [WM made it up] not our view. Not sure why you would purposefully misrepresent our views.

Okay. George Washington didn’t say it, WM didn’t say it — who are y’all saying, said it? Y’all refuse to offer even a passing nod to the very basic human-learning concept of uncertainty; but y’all won’t even comment on who came up with this. Someone must have.

Sure, go ahead and “entertain the idea”. But it doesn’t hold up as a valid attribution.

Y’all still haven’t provided any other name, to whom it could be attributed.
- mkfreeberg | 06/02/2014 @ 18:28
mkfreeberg: George Washington didn’t say it, WM didn’t say it — who are y’all saying, said it?

Presumably W.M. did say it.

mkfreeberg: Someone must have {said it}.

Sure. But the origin of the quote is very uncertain, and probably not authentic to Washington.

mkfreeberg: Y’all still haven’t provided any other name, to whom it could be attributed.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/03/2014 @ 04:26
Presumably W.M. did say it.

Obviously, there is a question around whether anyone said it earlier. Presumably, someone else did, otherwise W.M. fabricated it on the spot, which does not seem to be what y’all are alleging.

“Black and white thinking” fits here, since it’s a yes or no question. WM fabricated it, or else WM get it from somewhere else. If it is the latter, then the research is incomplete. Which is not to say it lacks diligence, but then it would be unreasonable to conclude anything from it with too much certainty.

Y”all’s “experts” from Mount Vernon are not as guilty of this, as y’all are.
- mkfreeberg | 06/04/2014 @ 04:51
mkfreeberg: “Black and white thinking” fits here, since it’s a yes or no question. WM fabricated it, or else WM get it from somewhere else.

Which just goes to show how deep into black-and-white thinking you are, and how it limits your ability to consider possibilities. Perhaps WM misheard, misread, misremembered, took artistic license. That could mean he both received and changed the message, whatever that message was. Maybe WM heard that George Washington Carver was suspicious of government and was inspired to put it into words. May as well say

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington

mkfreeberg: it would be unreasonable to conclude anything from it with too much certainty

So you will correct your attribution, which didn’t allow for any uncertainty.
- Zachriel | 06/04/2014 @ 05:40
M: “Black and white thinking” fits here, since it’s a yes or no question. WM fabricated it, or else WM get it from somewhere else.

Z: Which just goes to show how deep into black-and-white thinking you are, and how it limits your ability to consider possibilities.

If black-and-white thinking fits into a situation, then that necessarily means any compromise-increments are not so much “possibilities,” but nonsense. It’s called Law of Excluded Middle and it’s one of the fundamental laws of thought.

Perhaps WM misheard, misread, misremembered, took artistic license. That could mean…

That would mean something else came before. See, y’all’ shades-of-gray thinking is getting in the way of y’all pondering the meaning of what we know & what we don’t know.

If something came before, then y’all’s experts quit their research before they found the origin. If they quit their research before they found the origin, then they don’t have any expert commentary to offer in what happened between George Washington and W.M.

That is not to say their research wasn’t diligent. What’s a diligent researcher to do, if the evidence has been destroyed? And that is the usual outcome in studying history. Lots of time can yield lots of destructive potential.

However, it does seem someone is doing a rather “millennial” job of noodling out what to think, based on what we’ve been able to find out about this. As in, “Aw this is too hard, let’s quit. But can we still act like we know what happened here?” In other words, go ahead and get the trophy for participating. If that’s been happening non-stop since second grade, I’m pretty sure it must seem like a natural expectation to have. Declare the research done, the facts known, because we still don’t know what actually happened but we’ve worked really, really, really hard on it.

And can’t comprehend the basic human-knowledge concept of uncertainty. Which somehow becomes everybody else’s problem.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 05:38
mkfreeberg: It’s called Law of Excluded Middle and it’s one of the fundamental laws of thought.

That only applies when you have a perfect dichotomy. Here’s you statement.

mk: WM fabricated it, or else WM get it from somewhere else.

mkfreeberg: That would mean something else came before.

Yes, it means *something* else came before, but not necessarily “it”, the quote. In any case, your attribution is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 06/06/2014 @ 10:37
Yes, it means *something* else came before, but not necessarily “it”, the quote. In any case, your attribution is unsupported.

In any case, the experts did not research the origin of the story, which is the subject of their conjecture. So y’all are reading a level of certainty to it that they would not be able to support.

Y’all’s shades-of-gray thinking have compelled y’all to conclude this W.M. character — about whom y’all didn’t even know until we proceeded with this conversation, fabricated the quote, or else “misheard, misread, misremembered, took artistic license” about something. So y’all are ready to disparage this character, about whom y’all didn’t know a single thing until I brought it up.

Well, that’s the beauty of America. Y’all don’t need to demonstrate competence in a subject before y’all can opine away, alerting others to the fact that y’all are ignorant, and apathetic as well. Without even revealing y’all’s names. Or, even, quantity.

Still not sure why anyone else should care.
- mkfreeberg | 06/06/2014 @ 21:39
mkfreeberg: In any case, the experts did not research the origin of the story, which is the subject of their conjecture.

Huh? Your own citation above researched the origin, and found it unsupported.
- Zachriel | 06/07/2014 @ 04:56
Your own citation above researched the origin, and found it unsupported.

Y’all have conceded that “something came before.” That would negate the concept of “origin.”

If anything is unsupported, it is y’all’s insistence that there’s some kind of correction that has to be made here. Perhaps the fairest way to categorize the quote is as one of many legends about George Washington, much like Winston Churchill saying things about the sort of nonsense up with which he shall not put. It certainly does qualify as that. And, since it does, it’s quite fair to say “George Washington had it right” and put up a link referencing the saying that has been associated with his name, and nobody else’s, since before any of us were born.
- mkfreeberg | 06/07/2014 @ 10:02
mkfreeberg: Perhaps the fairest way to categorize the quote is as one of many legends about George Washington …

Yes, it’s apocryphal.

mkfreeberg: much like Winston Churchill saying things about the sort of nonsense up with which he shall not put.

The difference, of course, is that the latter is merely a joke, while the former is meant to add Washington’s imprimatur to the quote.

mkfreeberg: If anything is unsupported, it is y’all’s insistence that there’s some kind of correction that has to be made here.

You don’t have to do anything. However, it reflects on your credibility when your own citation says the citation is not supported.
- Zachriel | 06/07/2014 @ 12:28
The difference, of course, is that the latter is merely a joke, while the former is meant to add Washington’s imprimatur to the quote.

Then in articulating the only difference, y’all resort to speculating on the motives behind the subject of a passive-voice statement (“is meant to add”). Which means this only-difference is nonsense.

I can make it an active-voice statement, though: “The difference, of course, is that The Zachriel see something undesirable in the idea expressed in the Washington quote, and so seek to demote it from something Washington said, to something any-ol’-schmuck said, because that would make it easier to ridicule it away without dealing with the truth of the statement itself.”

However, it reflects on your credibility when your own citation says the citation is not supported.

False. What would reflect on my own credibility in saying “Washington was right,” would be something suggesting he wasn’t right.
- mkfreeberg | 06/07/2014 @ 19:42
mkfreeberg: Which means this only-difference is nonsense.

It’s obvious that attributing the quote to Washington adds credibility to the idea.

mkfreeberg: “The difference, of course, is that The Zachriel see something undesirable in the idea expressed in the Washington quote, and so seek to demote it from something Washington said, to something any-ol’-schmuck said, because that would make it easier to ridicule it away without dealing with the truth of the statement itself.”

Our claim is that it is a spurious attribution. Your own sources say it is probably spurious. You should attribute it properly.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 05:35
Z: It’s obvious that attributing the quote to Washington adds credibility to the idea.

It’s also obvious that the attribution is important enough for you to defend. Why don’t you defend the statement without the attribution?

or this

“Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” — Any-ol’-Schmuck

or even this

“Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.” — George Washington (apocryphal)
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 05:40
It’s obvious that attributing the quote to Washington adds credibility to the idea.

Yes, now we come to the heart of the matter.

It’s also obvious that the attribution is important enough for you to defend. Why don’t you defend the statement without the attribution?

Actually, I did. George Washington had it right. The question would be, why don’t y’all attack the statement itself, without attacking the attribution?
- mkfreeberg | 06/08/2014 @ 06:08
mkfreeberg: George Washington had it right.

Which emphasizes the attribution.

mkfreeberg: The question would be, why don’t y’all attack the statement itself, without attacking the attribution?

When we first brought it up, we thought it was like a typo, that you would correct the attribution, and then move on. Who could have known you would defend an attribution your own sources say is questionable. But it has revealed the weakness in how you reach your conclusions.
- Zachriel | 06/08/2014 @ 06:34
Who could have known you would defend an attribution your own sources say is questionable. But it has revealed the weakness in how you reach your conclusions.

Actually, what I did was disagree that a correction was needed. If this was wrong on my part, y’all haven’t succeeded in demonstrating how.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 03:41
mkfreeberg: If this was wrong on my part, y’all haven’t succeeded in demonstrating how.

You demonstrated it yourself. Your own source concluded the quote was not properly attributed.
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 05:27
You demonstrated it yourself. Your own source concluded the quote was not properly attributed.

And, to whom should this quote be properly attributed, if not to George Washington?
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 05:29
mkfreeberg: And, to whom should this quote be properly attributed, if not to George Washington?

George Washington (apocryphal) or Often attributed to George Washington. If you were a real stickler, you could link to the Mount Vernon Association or Wikiquotes with a discussion of the merits.

As we said, this shouldn’t have consumed several weeks, but it was revealing of how you reach your conclusions.
- Zachriel | 06/10/2014 @ 05:41
As we said, this shouldn’t have consumed several weeks…

I agree. There’s no need to make any correction at all, and it’s frankly mind-blowing how much opportunity y’all have had to make the case, and how little y’all have managed to do with it.

Y’all’s own “experts” stop short of declaring the quote spurious, and admit that they lack the evidence required to prove such a thing. Y’all didn’t even know anything about “WM” until I pointed it out to y’all. That was especially lame. Weak tea, start to finish.
- mkfreeberg | 06/10/2014 @ 19:28
mkfreeberg: Y’all didn’t even know anything about “WM” until I pointed it out to y’all.

What do you know about “WM”?

mkfreeberg: Y’all’s own “experts” stop short of declaring the quote spurious

Our linked source lists the quote under the title “Spurious Quotes”.

Your linked source: “Lawson Hamblin, who owns a facsimile, and Horace Peck, America’s foremost authority on quotations, informed me this paragraph is apocryphal.”
- Zachriel | 06/11/2014 @ 04:52
Our linked source lists the quote under the title “Spurious Quotes”.

Y’all’s experts did not come out and say the quote was spurious; they would be wrong to do so, as they have not researched the matter sufficiently to prove such a claim, as they themselves would admit.
- mkfreeberg | 06/11/2014 @ 19:41
mkfreeberg: Y’all’s experts did not come out and say the quote was spurious …

Um, they made a list of spurious quotes. That was one of them. Even your own source says the quote is apocryphal.
- Zachriel | 06/12/2014 @ 04:45
Um, they made a list of spurious quotes. That was one of them. Even your own source says the quote is apocryphal.

They never said the quote actually was spurious, and they lack the evidence to say such a thing.

They worked really hard researching it, couldn’t find anything prior to 1902 even though it is almost certain there must have been something. Having worked hard at it, they stopped. That’s a very millennial way to reach a conclusion about a quote, or about anything else for that matter.

So anyway. Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions. Y’all have produced experts who agree with y’all’s side of it, but they have no expert opinions to offer because they have no expert facts to offer before 1902. There’s nothing factual to be cleared up here, at all, and having reviewed it several times now I see nothing in need of clarification or correction. If y’all want to subordinate y’all’s own reasoning process to these experts, who don’t have the factual basis to conclude what y’all are so satisfied that they have concluded, with the level of certainty y’all plainly wish was imbued into their conclusions, then y’all go right ahead. Others prefer to think for themselves. And that’s fine. That’s how things that actually work, get built.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 04:06
mkfreeberg: They never said the quote actually was spurious

Yes, they did. It’s right at the top of the page, “Spurious Quotations”. Meanwhile, your own source indicated it was apocryphal.

mkfreeberg: <I.Others prefer to think for themselves. And that’s fine.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 05:46
Yes, they did. It’s right at the top of the page, “Spurious Quotations”.

If they are advancing that as their expert opinion, they are advancing an opinion unsupported by the evidence.

That being the case, it really doesn’t matter whether the opinion came from experts or non-experts. It is not supported by the facts. Y’all are free to accept it as a certainty, but that doesn’t mean others have to.

I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 06:21
mkfreeberg: That being the case, it really doesn’t matter whether the opinion came from experts or non-experts. It is not supported by the facts.

Facts trump expert opinion, but one should be wary to claim to know more about the facts than experts in a specialized field.

mkfreeberg: If they are advancing that as their expert opinion, they are advancing an opinion unsupported by the evidence.

What evidence? The only evidence you’ve provided is an anonymous attribution from a century after Washington’s death.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 06:24
Facts trump expert opinion, but one should be wary to claim to know more about the facts than experts in a specialized field.

And, experts should be wary of thinking they know more than they do.

When even non-experts can see that is what they’re doing, it is the non-expert who should be wary.

In any case. The factual background is uncontested and clear. Y’all should not attribute the quote to G. Washington, if ever tempted. But if someone else so attributes, no problem. Y’all can disagree just like y’all can disagree about anything else.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 08:14
mkfreeberg: And, experts should be wary of thinking they know more than they do.

Of course. Then again, you haven’t provided any evidence to call into question expert opinion on the Washington quote. Indeed, your only citation determined the quote to be apocryphal.

mkfreeberg: But if someone else so attributes, no problem.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 08:19
Then again, you haven’t provided any evidence to call into…

To repeat: The factual background is uncontested and clear. If ever y’all are tempted to connect this quote to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should. But it’s okay for others to do so. There’s nothing proving he didn’t say it, and in fact, nobody’s been able to produce another name to whom the quote should be attributed.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 09:29
mkfreeberg: To repeat: The factual background is uncontested and clear.

That’s right. There’s no support for attributing the quote to George Washington.

mkfreeberg: There’s nothing proving he didn’t say it, and in fact, nobody’s been able to produce another name to whom the quote should be attributed.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2014 @ 12:11
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.

This has been attributed to others who are not George Washington.

The quote under discussion, about government/fire/servants/masters, has not been. Y’all’s analogy fails.

Anyway. To repeat: The factual background is uncontested and clear. If ever y’all are tempted to connect this quote to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should. But it’s okay for others to do so.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2014 @ 19:45
mkfreeberg: This has been attributed to others who are not George Washington

Government is like fire — W.M.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:16
mkfreeberg: This has been attributed to others who are not George Washington.

How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”? Really, he’s been robbed by other stand-ups for years. You should really see the bit he does with his false teeth. It’s hilarious!
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:17
Government is like fire — W.M.

So y’all want to attribute it to the name, about which y’all knew absolutely nothing until I pointed it out. Fascinating.

How do you know Washington didn’t say “I’m here all week, try the veal”? Really, he’s been robbed by other stand-ups for years. You should really see the bit he does with his false teeth. It’s hilarious!

“I can see Russia from my house!!” — Sarah Palin.

Hey, there are people who really buy into that one. Y’all better get busy and start scrubbing the Internet.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:52
mkfreeberg: So y’all want to attribute it to the name, about which y’all knew absolutely nothing until I pointed it out.

We were aware of the anonymous citation in the Scientology Journal made a century after Washington’s death.

mkfreeberg: “I can see Russia from my house!!” — Sarah Palin.

Good example! You agree it does matter after all.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:00
Good example!

Is it? It doesn’t take too much research to figure out exactly what Palin said, and exactly who said the other thing. I can’t imagine conflating that with the George Washington situation, in which some evidently diligent research by qualified experts has concluded in an unknown. But apparently y’all can.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:22
mkfreeberg: It doesn’t take too much research to figure out exactly what Palin said

That’s right! It’s improperly attributed. You’ve finally got it!
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:23
That’s right! It’s improperly attributed.

I caught on to it quite some time ago. Y’all think y’all “know” something y’all don’t really know.

And y’all never get tired of demonstrating it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:34
mkfreeberg: I caught on to it quite some time ago.

Good for you!

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:35
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.

So in a world where ignorance is the same as knowledge, uncertainty is equivalent to certainty, a correction WOULD be in order. Thanks for clarifying.

If ever y’all are tempted to connect this statement to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should. Other people do not have to follow y’all’s beliefs, though.

Or y’all’s scripts.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:38
mkfreeberg: So in a world where ignorance is the same as knowledge, uncertainty is equivalent to certainty, a correction WOULD be in order.

You claimed George Washington said “government is like fire”. You have no evidence of this other than an anonymous attribution in a Scientology journal a century after Washington’s death. Research has found no such statement by Washington, or anything like it. Your claim is unsupported at the very least.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:40
You claimed George Washington said “government is like fire”.

Go back and read. I said he was RIGHT.

Y’all made an issue out of whether or not he said it.

I think, what’s happening is, it’s too difficult for y’all to argue about whether the statement is right or not, so first y’all seek to demote it to the status of something some plagiarist said. It’s beyond y’all to discuss the statement on its merits.

And, it actually does sound like something George Washington would have said. Or, any one of a number of other Founding Fathers.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:43
mkfreeberg: Go back and read. I said he was RIGHT.

You attributed a statement to George Washington he probably never said, something for which there is no reasonable support.

mkfreeberg: I think, what’s happening is, it’s too difficult for y’all to argue about whether the statement is right or not

We’d be happy to discuss the statement, but not when you have to rely upon a false attribution for support.

mkfreeberg: And, it actually does sound like something George Washington would have said.

It turns out that there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and his times. He was a prolific writer, penning at least 18,000 letters. You can find large collections of original documents concerning George Washington at Mount Vernon, the University of Virginia, and the Library of Congress.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:48
M: And, it actually does sound like something George Washington would have said.

Z: It turns out that there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and his times. He was a prolific writer, penning at least 18,000 letters. You can find large collections of original documents concerning George Washington at Mount Vernon, the University of Virginia, and the Library of Congress.

All true. And, we should make sure we don’t include the comments of any liberals in figuring out what George Washington might have been likely to say, since they have a vested interest in misrepresenting his ideas.

Also, liberals don’t care about history. By y’all’s own definition of the term. They look forward to a future that may or may not be possible, and the past simply isn’t on their radar.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:57
mkfreeberg: And, we should make sure we don’t include the comments of any liberals in figuring out what George Washington might have been likely to say, since they have a vested interest in misrepresenting his ideas.

As we said, there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and his times. You don’t have to reply on anyone but yourself. Let us know the results of your investigation.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:58
As we said, there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and his times.

Think y’all mean to say, there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and the way he communicated. “His times” wouldn’t say too much about him, or anybody else known to possess extraordinary characteristics. It’s part of the meaning of the word “extraordinary.”

But with all this documentary evidence, it should have been easy to construct a solid argument that this doesn’t resemble something Washington would have said. No such argument has been provided, by y’all or by the experts.

Not that it matters. The quote is famous because it’s so true, and it has long been associated with the name of Washington. And no one else. Nevertheless, I don’t think y’all should attribute it to Washington, if y’all really do have serious doubts that he said it. But Washington was certainly right; government is not eloquence, it is fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:07
mkfreeberg: Think y’all mean to say, there is a lot of documentary evidence concerning Washington and the way he communicated.

The way he communicated, the way he farmed, the way he approached problems.

mkfreeberg: “His times” wouldn’t say too much about him, or anybody else known to possess extraordinary characteristics.

Huh? Washington didn’t live in a vacuum. He communicated with others, and others wrote about him. In addition, the times are clearly important for understanding Washington.

mkfreeberg: No such argument has been provided, by y’all or by the experts.

Actually, we did, though we didn’t consider it definitive, which is why we checked with experts in the field. We’ve read a fair bit of Washington’s writings, including his journals, and nothing we’ve read seems anything like the purported quote. The quote you attributed to him reads like something from the Romantic, and Washington was many things, but not a Romantic. In any case, it raised our suspicions, but we wouldn’t have posted unless we had a reliable citation.

mkfreeberg: But Washington was certainly right; government is not eloquence, it is fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.

Washington probably never made that statement. You will find it listed as spurious by the Mount Vernon Association, whose historians and documentarians have access to a large library of original documents.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:15
The way he communicated, the way he farmed, the way he approached problems.

Then, if ever y’all are tempted to attribute the quote to Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since y’all have these feelings. That doesn’t mean others are obliged to share those.

Huh? Washington didn’t live in a vacuum. He communicated with others, and others wrote about him. In addition, the times are clearly important for understanding Washington.

Okay, but I’m not sure how that means we can determine he didn’t say something based on how ordinary people wrote during these times, when Washington was clearly not an ordinary person. Y’all’s conclusions here seem to rely a great deal on confusing things with their opposites: Ignorance for knowledge, ordinary with extraordinary, definitive falsification with a dead end.

Washington probably never made that statement. You will find it listed as spurious by the Mount Vernon Association, whose historians and documentarians have access to a large library of original documents.

They may have done some wonderful work elsewhere, but they seem to have done a very “millennial” job with this one: “We worked really really hard on finding it, couldn’t find anything before 1902, so we stopped.” And then they didn’t even bother to offer a specific example about why this doesn’t read like something Washington might have said. Or to proofread the page!
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:33
mkfreeberg: Then, if ever y’all are tempted to attribute the quote to Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since y’all have these feelings.

It has nothing to do with feelings. The quote is probably inaccurately attributed to Washington.

mkfreeberg: I’m not sure how that means we can determine he didn’t say something based on how ordinary people wrote during these times, when Washington was clearly not an ordinary person.

Among other things, they often wrote down what Washington said or did.

mkfreeberg: “We worked really really hard on finding it, couldn’t find anything before 1902, so we stopped.”

The 1902 reference is an anonymous attribution in a Christian Science journal. Notably, you haven’t provide any other evidence, even though there is a huge amount of scholarship, including original documents, on Washington.

mkfreeberg: And then they didn’t even bother to offer a specific example about why this doesn’t read like something Washington might have said.

We provided direct citations to the papers of Washington, including providing quoted sections, many times.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 07:15
It has nothing to do with feelings.

False. it has EVERYTHING to do with feelings. Y’all feel like y’all know something as a fact, which y’all have made clear several times. And y’all simply don’t know it with that level of certainty, that has also been proven several times.

But y’all want so much for it to not be something George Washington said. If y’all could falsify the statement by arguing over its merits, instead of who said it, that would be the logical course for y’all to follow. But of course that would be much tougher.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 17:50
mkfreeberg: Y’all feel like y’all know something as a fact, which y’all have made clear several times.

No, we provided an objective argument. We provided direct citations to the papers of Washington, including providing quoted sections. We have also cited expert opinion.

mkfreeberg: If y’all could falsify the statement by arguing over its merits, instead of who said it, that would be the logical course for y’all to follow.

That might be an interesting question, but you continue to insist on the spurious attribution.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 18:00
That might be an interesting question, but you continue to insist on the spurious attribution.

Actually, my position is: I don’t know, and neither do y’all.

The doubt that Washington said this would have to be based, entirely, on the premise that if evidence corroborating the quote existed prior to 1902, it would have been found. Is that reasonable?

It would certainly not be reasonable in the case of a quote being attributed to, let’s say, Charlemagne who died in the 9th century — and we can find something a century after his death attributing it to him, but nothing earlier than that. It would not be a reasonable rationale with regard to someone who lived in the time of Christ. Or the founding of the Roman Empire. Or ancient Egypt.

That a history expert would write something like “doesn’t sound like something Washington would have said” and just leave it at that, ought to ring some alarm bells. Based on what? Did Washington write down something to the effect that government is cool to the touch, a reliable servant and a benevolent master?
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 04:20
mkfreeberg: Actually, my position is: I don’t know, and neither do y’all.

Good. Then you’ll correct the attribution.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 04:41
There’s nothing to correct. Are y’all saying the quote should be attributed to someone else?

Y’all’s lack of curiosity gets y’all in trouble again: Y’all know so much about how Washington didn’t say this, and yet knew nothing about “WM” until I mentioned it. Subsequently, y’all took the position that it should be attributed to WM.

I’m afraid before y’all can discuss this intelligently, y’all are going to have to learn of this fundamental human-knowledge concept of uncertainty. It looks like y’all have leaped to the conclusion the quote was fabricated, because 1) y’all just don’t like the idea that Washington might have said this and want to rule it out as a possibility; and 2) y’all have summarily ruled out “it’s an unknown” as a possible answer.

So I don’t think we should pretend y’all are listening to “experts” about this. That’s not the basis. The page isn’t even carefully proofread, it looks like something some hipster intern slapped together. And why should we listen to hipsters or liberals about history? They don’t care about it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:23
mkfreeberg: There’s nothing to correct. Are y’all saying the quote should be attributed to someone else?

You just said you don’t know. The attribution should reflect that. You could say it is apocryphal to Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 05:33
You just said you don’t know. The attribution should reflect that.

No, it isn’t necessary.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 06:03
mkfreeberg: No, it isn’t necessary.

It reflects poorly on your credibility to say the source of the quote is unknown while elsewhere attributing it to George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:04
It reflects poorly on your credibility to say the source of the quote is unknown while elsewhere attributing it to George Washington.

Most of history is unknown; at least, certainly as unknown as this.

Would it be reasonable to say a quote from Henry VIII, previously accepted, is now apocryphal, because someone decided “I should find a solid connection before 1649, and I wasn’t able to find one”?

How about a quote from Julius Caesar?

History is handed down from generation to generation. Some of it gets written down; some doesn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 06:12
mkfreeberg: Most of history is unknown

Yes, but we have good evidence of much of history.

mkfreeberg: Would it be reasonable to say a quote from Henry VIII, previously accepted, is now apocryphal, because someone decided “I should find a solid connection before 1649, and I wasn’t able to find one”?

Historians have methodologies for reaching reasonable conclusions, such as independent contemporary records, or a pattern of records emanating from a posited event, and consistency with other evidence from the period. In the case of George Washington, we have a vast amount of documentary evidence, including his journals, letters, and other contemporaneous records.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:37
Historians have methodologies for reaching reasonable conclusions, such as blah blah blah blah…

You know, a great deal of what we know about Socrates, we know from the writings of Plato.

Would it be reasonable for some hipster Ph.D. in History, born about 1979 or so, to get up out of bed tomorrow morning and decide “Screw that, I want a sturdier connection to the man himself or else as far as I’m concerned it’s apocryphal”?

A lot of our recent controversies with what Washington said, are, well, recent. And secular in nature, challenging things about our first President that previously weren’t up for challenge. They’re very trendy challenges, but being recent, they lack that connection to their subject. Washington Irving attended the first inauguration at age six; he said there was “so help me God” at the end of the oath, one other contemporary source (who was not confronting the issue directly) transcribed the speech and made no mention of these last four words. So “history” is settled, today, that this final sign-off is apocryphal.

It has no business being settled about such a thing. It doesn’t know. But it’s amazing that this manufactured-certainty, so consistently, pushes toward a more grunge, secular, “goth” vision of the Founding Fathers. Casual thinkers won’t question it; diligent thinkers will.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 18:02
mkfreeberg: You know, a great deal of what we know about Socrates, we know from the writings of Plato.

Yes, and other sources, such as Xenophon and Aristophanes.

mkfreeberg: Would it be reasonable for some hipster Ph.D. in History, born about 1979 or so, to get up out of bed tomorrow morning and decide “Screw that, I want a sturdier connection to the man himself

Not at all.

mkfreeberg: … or else as far as I’m concerned it’s apocryphal”?

It isn’t sufficient to merely adopt a belief for it to have credibility. She would have to develop evidence or arguments sufficient to overturn the existing findings. That might be difficult with regards to Socrates.

mkfreeberg: A lot of our recent controversies with what Washington said, are, well, recent.

In this case, it’s the purported quote that is relatively recent, only appearing as an anonymous attribution a century after Washington’s death.

mkfreeberg: It doesn’t know.

So you’ll correct the attribution.
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 05:24
In this case, it’s the purported quote that is relatively recent, only appearing as an anonymous attribution a century after Washington’s death.

Just like Socrates.

“I’m here all week, try the veal.” — Socrates.
- mkfreeberg | 06/18/2014 @ 19:53
mkfreeberg: Just like Socrates.

No. There are multiple contemporaneous sources concerning Socrates.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 05:09
mkfreeberg: “I’m here all week, try the veal.” — Socrates.

Funny guy that Socrates.

“I’m so ugly…I worked in a menagerie, and people kept asking how big I’d get.” — Socrates

Well, guess you had to be there.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 05:14
If someone wrote down what Socrates said, for the first time, only after his passing — the Zachriel’s position is crystal clear. That quote must be apocryphal.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 05:54
mkfreeberg: If someone wrote down what Socrates said, for the first time, only after his passing

Not necessarily. If there are multiple independent sources reporting the same story, credibility is increased. There are a number of such principles historicans use to determine the reliability of a claim.

That’s not the case with the Washington quote, which appears whole cloth from only a single source.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 06:02
If there are multiple independent sources reporting the same story, credibility is increased.

Yeah, and if a frog had wings he wouldn’t have to bump his ass on the ground all the time.

With Socrates, much of it is Plato and just Plato.

According to y’all’s logic, that makes it apocryphal. Hey, maybe we can run the “doesn’t sound like something Socrates would’ve said” up the flagpole, sorta throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 18:13
mkfreeberg: With Socrates, much of it is Plato and just Plato.

Plato was a student of Socrates, so was a direct witness to what Socrates said. There are other sources for Socrates, such as Xenophon, another student of Socrates, as well as Aristophanes, a critic of Socrates.

There are even more sources concerning George Washington. Not only do we have Washington’s journals and letters, but his life was documented by many of his contemporaries.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 02:42
There are even more sources concerning George Washington. Not only do we have Washington’s journals and letters, but his life was documented by many of his contemporaries.

So was my Grandfather’s. But to this very day, it’s still a little surprising some of the stuff that comes up, that everyone save for one person forgot to write down or commit to memory.

And very little of it actually got written down. Y’all seem to have an expectation that nearly all of what was remembered about Washington, must have been in writing, and that writing somehow all survived. Aside from desperately hoping Washington would not have said such a thing, so that the sentiment can more easily be opposed — why would anybody seriously think such a thing?
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 05:44
mkfreeberg: But to this very day, it’s still a little surprising some of the stuff that comes up, that everyone save for one person forgot to write down or commit to memory.

Yes, and it comes up from personal memories of people who knew your grandfather.

mkfreeberg: And very little of it actually got written down.

Unlike George Washington.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 09:11
Yes, and it comes up from personal memories of people who knew your grandfather.

Or, people who knew people who knew him. None of it written down — ever. And these are people who might just as easily have kept their mouths shut, to the grave, not even worrying about it overly much. When they talk about what they know and why it is that they know it, the rest of us have to reasonably decide whether or not that really is the case.

One of the ways we do that is to figure out if the story gels with what we already know about this person. Occasionally, we are surprised even after we think we’ve done this diligently, and we call that “learning.”

An unreasonable way of doing that would be for a person to wake up one morning, born long after the events and their various first-person re-tellings, and saying to himself “Hey, I don’t like this thing, maybe I can sell it to a lot of people that it never happened.” Another unreasonable way of doing that would be to hear “this doesn’t sound like something [x] would have said” — with no details offered whatsoever — and, concluding from that, “Well shoot, I don’t like the idea that [x] might have said it, so without checking that claim at all, I’ll just decide it has merit and this doesn’t sound like something [x] would have said.”

Another unreasonable way to do this would be to listen to liberals. They don’t care about history. That’s according to y’all’s definition of the word. So, was this hipster-intern guy at the Mount Vernon center a lib? The guy who doesn’t proofread his page very well, and purports to speak for all the experts?

M: And very little of it actually got written down.

Z: Unlike George Washington.

Think we can safely presume Washington was among the guys who said a lot of stuff, that never got written down. It’s not like he could’ve taken a secretary with him everywhere he went. Like for instance, on the battlefield, with all those musketballs missing him by inches. Kinda hard to keep a pen steady in a setting like that.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 16:54
mkfreeberg: Or, people who knew people who knew him. None of it written down — ever.

Which is unlike the situation with George Washington.

mkfreeberg: It’s not like he could’ve taken a secretary with him everywhere he went.

You’re funny. This is why we keep coming back. Washington had a personal secretary even as a young man.

mkfreeberg: Like for instance, on the battlefield, with all those musketballs missing him by inches.

Eighteen century armies ran on paper work. Washington had twenty-nine different Aides-de-Camp during the war. Some were wounded, including Alexander Hamilton. Washington was constantly surrounded by officers, who wrote accounts of Washington in letters and journals.
- Zachriel | 06/21/2014 @ 06:34
Eighteen century armies ran on paper work. Washington had twenty-nine different Aides-de-Camp during the war. Some were wounded, including Alexander Hamilton. Washington was constantly surrounded by officers, who wrote accounts of Washington in letters and journals.

Perhaps — like many of us — Washington amounts to a mix of what was spoken, and what was written.

Most of the history of interesting people is like that.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2014 @ 16:05
mkfreeberg: Perhaps — like many of us — Washington amounts to a mix of what was spoken, and what was written.

Sure, but the purported quote is obviously composed, as if part of a speech. And the longer between the purported quote and its reporting, the less likely the attribution is accurate, especially when the first known occurrence is an anonymous attribution in a Christian Science journal a century after Washington’s death. Furthermore, it’s out of place, being dissimilar from anything else Washington ever said.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 04:35
Furthermore, it’s out of place, being dissimilar from anything else Washington ever said.

So y’all’s hipster intern has said. Without explaining what was meant by this.

Y’all have vacillated back and forth on that question, of whether this point is a reference to Washington’s feelings about government, or to his writing style. For writing style, we can look to a random selection in the Farewell Address:

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The style is consistent. “Doesn’t seem to be anything Washington would have said” is either a sincere statement about Washington’s feelings about government, or propaganda put together for the benefit of propaganda-consumers considered unlikely to go check on anything.

Another randomly selected passage:

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

Again, the style of writing is consistent.

And, with regard to his feelings about government, it is clear he recognizes both the necessity of empowering it with legal authority — as do many conservatives today — AND the importance of recognizing its constitutional limitations.

Y’all’s claim was that the quote is “dissimilar from anything else Washington ever said.” This is false.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 06:51
mkfreeberg: Y’all have vacillated back and forth on that question, of whether this point is a reference to Washington’s feelings about government, or to his writing style.

No. We have suggested that it does not fit his mode of thought or writing, but that we deferred to expert opinion.

mkfreeberg (quoting): “Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.”

Nothing that looks similar at all to the purported quote, which comes across as something from the Romantic.

mkfreeberg (quoting): “This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. ”

Again, that’s the mode of thought of the Enlightenment. That does not support your claimed attribution, which you yourself have already admitted you can’t support.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 08:54
We have suggested that it does not fit his mode of thought or writing, but that we deferred to expert opinion.

When we take the trouble to inspect his thought & writing ourselves, it seems to fit. If only we knew who this expert was, we’d be able to tell whose credibility should suffer as a consequence.

There seems to be a remarkably great number unnamed people involved in this “expert” suggestion.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 10:00
mkfreeberg: When we take the trouble to inspect his thought & writing ourselves, it seems to fit.

You provided two quotes, both of which have the mode of thought of someone from the Enlightenment, not the Romantic, such as the purported quote.

mkfreeberg: If only we knew who this expert was, we’d be able to tell whose credibility should suffer as a consequence.

The quote has been reasonably found to be spurious by historians and documentarians at the Mount Vernon Association. Your own citation supported this finding.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 15:40
You provided two quotes, both of which have the mode of thought of someone from the Enlightenment, not the Romantic, such as the purported quote.

Once again, a distinction without a difference.

The quote has been reasonably found to be spurious by historians and documentarians at the Mount Vernon Association. Your own citation supported this finding.

Except there hasn’t been a “finding.” Just a lot of muttering by anonymous people.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 20:04
Which, when we take the time to check it out, turns out to be nonsense.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 20:04
mkfreeberg: Just a lot of muttering by anonymous people.

The Mount Vernon Association is not anonymous, but have a staff of historians and documentarians, along with access to a large library of original documents from the period.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations

mkfreeberg: Once again, a distinction without a difference.

What? No distinction between the Enlightenment and the Romantic? Are you serious?
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 05:10
The Mount Vernon Association is not anonymous, but have a staff of historians and documentarians, along with access to a large library of original documents from the period.

Oh, so this page was a collaborative project then? Why the crappy proofreading?

More likely, it was the product of one Occupy Wall Street protester hipster intern, maybe the library’s webmaster, who cobbled a page together no one bothered to edit.

What? No distinction between the Enlightenment and the Romantic? Are you serious?

There is no defined difference between the writing style of the quote, and the writing style of the passages in the Farewell Address. Would y’all care to define one?
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 06:02
mkfreeberg: More likely, it was the product of one Occupy Wall Street protester hipster intern, maybe the library’s webmaster, who cobbled a page together no one bothered to edit.

Do you really think the scholars at the Mount Vernon Association think the quote you provided is genuine? Seriously now? Or are you just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks?

mkfreeberg: There is no defined difference between the writing style of the quote, and the writing style of the passages in the Farewell Address.

There’s a huge difference, in writing style and in modes of thought. We’d be happy to discuss that, but first try to answer some questions that have already been posed. Do you still contend there is not significant distinction between the Enlightenment and the Romantic?
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:05
Severian must have missed our response above, so we are reposting it here.

Severian: As explained to y’all here, developmentally normal readers will generally interpret the statement “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said”

That’s correct. George Washington was a product of the Enlightenment. The statement doesn’t seem to match Washington’s diction or philosophy. However, “seems to” is not a very strong argument, so we checked with the Mount Vernon Association, and they have researched the topic and determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 09:29
There’s a huge difference, in writing style and in modes of thought. We’d be happy to discuss that, but first…

No, I think y’all can skip right to that. It is at the heart of the matter, is it not? The “fire/servant/master” thing isn’t supposed to match Washington’s “diction or philosophy” — but it sure as heck seems to, when we go researching it. Which it’s obvious we weren’t supposed to do.

In what way have y’all excluded the possibilities that —

1. Washington could have written in any way outside of “the enlightenment”; I can see how y’all might say such a thing of an ordinary person, but obviously Washington was not that.
2. The quote could have been characterized as using “enlightenment” language. Specifically.
3. Washington could have used language from the Romantic period — which began with the French Revolution, an event that took place a decade before Washington’s death.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 18:13
mkfreeberg: but it sure as heck seems to, when we go researching it.

You’ve provided no such evidence. Indeed, you laughably claimed there was no real difference between Enlightenment thought and that of the Romantic.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 03:57
You’ve provided no such evidence. Indeed, you laughably claimed there was no real difference between Enlightenment thought and that of the Romantic.

Y’all have defined no significance in any such distinction. Y’all have failed to qualify the purported quote as “Romantic” an failed to explain why it is we should think of Washington as writing exclusively in enlightenment style. Y’all’s own citation make it clear he wrote in a variety of different ways, depending on the occasion.

The claim is that the quote is spurious. Y’all have failed to support it.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:29
mkfreeberg: Y’all have defined no significance in any such distinction.

You might try Wikipedia to start.

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange.

Romanticism: Partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, it was also a revolt against the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature… The movement validated intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities: both new aesthetic categories. It elevated folk art and ancient custom to a noble status, made spontaneity a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu), and argued for a natural epistemology of human activities, as conditioned by nature in the form of language and customary usage.

mkfreeberg: The claim is that the quote is spurious.

http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:36
You might try Wikipedia to start.

I am asking y’all.

Y’all have provided textbook definitions of the terms. But y’all have failed to identify how this involves any reason, whatsoever, that the quote in question, through its characterization in the use of these terms, could be qualified as something George Washington would not have said.

To repeat, Washington was a complex individual who wrote according to a variety of different writing styles depending on the situation. So it appears — once again — y’all are simply throwing around terminologies that don’t necessarily fit, so people will say “Whoah these anonymous people put on a good show of knowing what they’re talking about, I’ll just agree with them”…when, if one simply takes the time to ask questions, and check out y’all’s claims, the emperor is quickly revealed to not be wearing any clothes. And we see the quote was never called into question until long after it was made, which puts y’all’s hipster Occupy-Wall-Street intern over at Mount Vernon in a poor position to wake up one morning and decide “I don’t like that George Washington said that, maybe I can sell the idea that he didn’t say it.” Y’all’s logic is so weak, that if it were implemented against the sayings of Socrates, we could easily “discredit” more than half of them and call those spurious too.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 04:24
mkfreeberg: I am asking y’all.

And we provided an answer. Are you going to redefine Enlightenment and Romantic now?

mkfreeberg: To repeat, Washington was a complex individual who wrote according to a variety of different writing styles depending on the situation.

None of which are Romantic in style or mode of thought. In any case, we provided an authoritative source.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 05:06
And we provided an answer.

Negatori. Y’all provided a monologue prepared for the slope-headed morons who never heard of enlightenment or romantic, then y’all told me to try Wikipedia. All of this is good for introduction to the concepts. None of it does anything to substantiate y’all’s claim.

Although “None of which [Washington’s writings] are Romantic in style or mode of thought” at least goes on record to say something. But y’all haven’t done anything to identify how this involves any reason, whatsoever, that the quote in question, through its characterization in the use of these terms, could be qualified as something George Washington would not have said.

Are y’all trying to say the quote is Romantic? How do y’all figure? Are y’all able to explain this part of it?
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 17:42
mkfreeberg: Y’all provided a monologue prepared for the slope-headed morons who never heard of enlightenment or romantic, then y’all told me to try Wikipedia.

You had said there was no significant distinction between the Enlightenment and the Romantic. That’s simply not the case. Do you intend to redefine these terms too?

mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to say the quote is Romantic?

People of the Enlightenment, such as George Washington, saw government as a reflection of its people. You can see that in the excerpts you provided above.

According to Washington, the government was formed “upon full investigation and mature deliberation”. Washington calls for individual responsibility saying “The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” He relies on “reflection”, “contemplation”, “observation”. This is the Enlightenment!!

A Romantic would not be “unawed” as was Washington. Romantics valued intuition and intense emotion; imagination, not “mature deliberation”. They yearned for the untamed.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus shows the problems of too rational thought, the limits of science when it impinges on the unknown and God’s domain. Similarly, a Romantic might personify government as a dangerous beast that people create and then have trouble controlling. That’s nothing like the excepts from Washington you provided above.

Washington was many things, but being a Romantic was not one of them.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 18:04
A Romantic would not be “unawed” as was Washington. Romantics valued intuition and intense emotion; imagination, not “mature deliberation”. They yearned for the untamed.

And it is the connection between that, and the quote in question, where y’all’s argument falls apart.

At the end of the day, y’all haven’t shown much of anything. Apart from, liberals are desperate to conceal any desire the Founding Fathers had, that we know they had, for limited and controlled government.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 18:09
mkfreeberg: And it is the connection between that, and the quote in question, where y’all’s argument falls apart.

We spent some time trying to explain it to you. We analyzed the excerpts of Washington you provided, showed you how and why it fits the mode of thought of the Enlightenment, and why the purported quote doesn’t fit that mode of thought. But you simply wave your hands and ignore our argument.

Keep in mind that when we saw the quote, it certainly didn’t seem to fit our reading of Washington, having read his journals, and many of his letters and speeches. However, we did not rely upon our own opinion, but sought out experts.

You do realize that Mount Vernon was where George Washington lived for most of his life, on ancestral land, and that they have historians and documentarians with access to a large library of original documents.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations

mkfreeberg: liberals are desperate to conceal any desire the Founding Fathers had, that we know they had, for limited and controlled government.

Of course they wanted limited and controlled government. They specifically designed the Constitution to limit the government, though by replacing the Articles of Confederation, they also made it robust enough for the nation to respond to new challenges. The U.S. Constitution is probably the pinnacle of Enlightenment thinking.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 18:18
We analyzed the excerpts of Washington you provided, showed you how and why it fits the mode of thought of the Enlightenment, and why the purported quote doesn’t fit that mode of thought. But you simply wave your hands and ignore our argument.

This relies on three premises:

1. George Washington wrote in only one single manner, and that was in the manner of the enlightenment.
2. It is impossible for any fragment of text to be written in both enlightenment and in romantic manner, as the two are completely mutually exclusive.
3. The quote in question, is to be characterized as romantic, and in no other way.

#1 is provably untrue. #2 is highly questionable. #3 y’all haven’t managed to support in any way at all, in fact, y’all’s characterization of “romantic” is somewhat at odds with the sentiment expressed. It is, like Washington, inherently conservative; it says, let’s take it easy and think a bit before putting government in charge of more things. It is mind-over-heart.

It seems whenever I ask a question about these warp-speed presumptions y’all have made about things, the notion that the quote should be labeled as spurious, suffers more damage. One naturally has to wonder if such an exercise ever took place in the hallowed halls of the Mt. Vernon society. Do y’all wish to continue?
- mkfreeberg | 06/26/2014 @ 04:13
mkfreeberg: 1. George Washington wrote in only one single manner, and that was in the manner of the enlightenment.

No. The claim is that his modes of political thought did not include the Romantic.

mkfreeberg: 2. It is impossible for any fragment of text to be written in both enlightenment and in romantic manner, as the two are completely mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily, but there is no indication of the Romantic in any of Washington’s political statements.

mkfreeberg: 3. The quote in question, is to be characterized as romantic, and in no other way.

It certainly has the earmarks of the Romantic. Earlier you said there was no substantial difference between the Enlightenment and the Romantic. Do you still hold that view?

mkfreeberg: #1 is provably untrue. #2 is highly questionable. #3 y’all haven’t managed to support in any way

#1 and #2 you got wrong, but even then offer no reason. You merely state your conclusion without support. #3 we supported by pointing out that a Romantic might personify government as a dangerous beast that people create and then have trouble controlling. We provided an example from Romantic literature.

mkfreeberg: in fact, y’all’s characterization of “romantic” is somewhat at odds with the sentiment expressed. It is, like Washington, inherently conservative; it says, let’s take it easy and think a bit before putting government in charge of more things. It is mind-over-heart.

The Enlightenment saw government as a reflection of its people, so if people are reasonable, then government will be reasonable, not unreasonable; if people are eloquent, then government will be eloquent, not unintelligible. It’s clear from the excerpts of Washington you yourself provided that that was his view.

In any case, we didn’t rely upon this analysis, but instead sought out expert opinion, and our impression was confirmed by that expert opinion.
http://www.mountvernon.org
- Zachriel | 06/26/2014 @ 04:57
It certainly has the earmarks of the Romantic.

It has “earmarks” of the Romantic, and nothing else Washington wrote eever had these “earmarks.” This is at the very hear of y’all’s argument, and y’all can’t qualify it in any way.

It seems whenever I ask a question about these warp-speed presumptions y’all have made about things, the notion that the quote should be labeled as spurious, suffers more damage. One naturally has to wonder if such an exercise ever took place in the hallowed halls of the Mt. Vernon society. Do y’all wish to continue?
- mkfreeberg | 06/26/2014 @ 18:57
mkfreeberg: This is at the very hear of y’all’s argument, and y’all can’t qualify it in any way.

You yourself provided some excerpts for our examination. They had nothing of the Romantic in them, and contradicted your position. Washington, like most people in the Enlightenment, saw government as a reflect of its participants, so if people were rational, then government would be rational. The purported quote says just the opposite.

Let’s analyze the latest exchange:

Zachriel: restates claim, addresses your points from the previous comment, explained Washington’s view of government and why that contradicts the purported quote, cited expert opinion.

mkfreeberg: Is not. You lose.
- Zachriel | 06/27/2014 @ 03:09
They had nothing of the Romantic in them, and contradicted your position.

Right, and it is this assessment of “romantic in them” that y’all cannot support.

Let’s analyze the latest exchange:

Actually, it is y’all’s analysis of the quote, and Washington’s writings, that are creating the problem here.

It seems whenever I ask a question about these warp-speed presumptions y’all have made about things, the notion that the quote should be labeled as spurious, suffers more damage. Do y’all wish to continue?
- mkfreeberg | 06/27/2014 @ 06:01
mkfreeberg: Right, and it is this assessment of “romantic in them” that y’all cannot support.

We addressed your excerpts above.

According to the excerpts of Washington you cited, the government was formed “upon full investigation and mature deliberation”. Washington calls for individual responsibility saying “The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” He relies on “reflection”, “contemplation”, “observation”. They were unawed by the responsibility. This is the Enlightenment!!

Let’s analyze the latest exchange:

Zachriel: restates support

mkfreeberg: Is not. You lose.
- Zachriel | 06/27/2014 @ 09:52
We addressed your excerpts above.

Not adequately. It is not clear how we are supposed to categorize the purported quote as “romantic,” to such an extent as to qualify it as something Washington was unlikely to have said. Y’all have failed to support y’all’s claim. It looks like y’all figured out, or someone pointed out to you, “just mention the Enlightenment and Romantic periods, and you can magically win arguments because your opposition will figure you know what these periods mean and they don’t, so they’ll be cowed into silence.” Now y’all are being asked how this provides support for the claim, and far from demonstrating any actual knowledge about the subjects y’all have selected y’all-selves, y’all are reduced to the ol’ copy-paste.

It comes down to: Just because knowing a “fact” makes y’all feel particularly smug, doesn’t mean y’all get to decide what others are forced to infer from it. Much of life is like that.

- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2014 @ 03:34
mkfreeberg: It looks like y’all figured out, or someone pointed out to you, “just mention the Enlightenment and Romantic periods, and you can magically win arguments because your opposition will figure you know what these periods mean and they don’t, so they’ll be cowed into silence.”

No. We provided specific reasons why your excerpts are consistent with an Enlightenment thinker, and why the purported quote is not.

mkfreeberg: It is not clear how we are supposed to categorize the purported quote as “romantic,” to such an extent as to qualify it as something Washington was unlikely to have said.

Repeatedly saying “Is not” isn’t an argument. We provided reasons above. They were sufficient to raise suspicion that we sought out an expert opinion, which confirmed our impression that the quote was likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 06/28/2014 @ 06:04
No. We provided specific reasons why your excerpts are consistent with an Enlightenment thinker, and why the purported quote is not.

Sure, if by “specific” what y’all mean to say is “inadequate.”

At any rate, the facts are well-understood by both sides. If y’all are tempted to associate this quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should do it. It’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. Others may have a different opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 06/28/2014 @ 08:20
mkfreeberg: Sure, if by “specific” what y’all mean to say is “inadequate.”

Saying “is not” is not an argument. To construct a counterargument, you have to actually address the argument.

According to the excerpts of Washington you cited, the government was formed “upon full investigation and mature deliberation”. Washington calls for individual responsibility saying “The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” He relies on “reflection”, “contemplation”, “observation”. They were unawed by the responsibility. This is the Enlightenment!!
- Zachriel | 06/28/2014 @ 08:50
This is the Enlightenment!!

So is the observation that government doesn’t make a reliable servant or benevolent master. That is thinking with the brain and not the heart; it relies on reason. Y’all have yet to support the argument that this is purely Romantic prose.

And y’all’s argument relies on that. Completely. Thus, it is an unsupported argument.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 06:39
mkfreeberg: So is the observation that government doesn’t make a reliable servant or benevolent master.

Per your own excerpts, Washington saw government as a reflection of its citizens, not as an anthropomorphic beast, chained but untamed. It doesn’t fit his diction, his mode of thought, of philosophy of government.

mkfreeberg: And y’all’s argument relies on that. Completely.

No. Experts have researched the topic and found the quote likely spurious. See http://www.mountvernon.org
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 07:04
Per your own excerpts, Washington saw government as…

That is not the issue with this enlightenment/romantic business. Y’all were leveraging that, to identify this fragment as something Washington was unlikely to have said. The “man of the enlightenment” didn’t write that way.

Again, y’all are vacillating back and forth, between protesting that the statement was inconsistent with Washington’s writing style, and that the statement was inconsistent with Washington’s feelings about government. I’m suspicious of both of these, but right now we’re addressing the writing-style thing. If y’all have confidence in the argument, y’all should stick to that.

If y’all don’t have confidence in it, then y’all should do exactly what y’all have been doing, moving back and forth trying not to get caught.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 07:42
mkfreeberg: The “man of the enlightenment” didn’t write that way.

Washington didn’t write that way because that’s not the way he thought about government.

mkfreeberg: If y’all have confidence in the argument, y’all should stick to that.

As we have pointed out repeatedly, we were somewhat familiar with George Washington, and suspected the quote was not attributable to Washington. Indeed, you above quoted some excerpts from a speech by Washington, and it expresses a view of government contrary to the purported quote.

However, our suspicions were not sufficient to make for a strong case, so we sought out expert opinion, which find that the quote is likely spurious. At that point, we decided to mention it to you, so that you could make the correct. See
http://www.mountvernon.org
- Zachriel | 06/29/2014 @ 09:10
However, our suspicions were not sufficient to make for a strong case, so we sought out expert opinion, which find that the quote is likely spurious.

So the whole thing about romantic vs. enlightenment, at the end of it, turns out to be entirely unfounded. How many comments did it take for us to get here?

How much of the rest of it is unfounded. We have: “that’s not the way he [Washington] thought about government.” Y’all have not produced any writing of Washington to the effect that government is a reliable/faithful/honest servant, or a benign/benevolent/nurturing master. His writings to the citizens, counsel them in several places to be good citizens. This is not the same as assuring them that they can place their unlimited trust in government.

So that part of it, too, is unfounded. So. Y’all have been entirely inconsistent in declaring whether the objection is about writing style or about sentiments with regard to government; the thing about writing style turns out to be unfounded; the thing about government turns out to be unfounded; the “expert opinion” is poorly proofread, and may very well have been typed up by a single summer-intern of leftist leaning, only pretending to speak on behalf of a consensus of the experts. Or a disgruntled dismissed employee putting up a web page on his last day?

Other than all those flaws, y’all’s argument is perfect. But meanwhile. The facts are clear. They do not establish anything about this quote, other than that there are some leftists who are in a great big hurry to discredit it, and I can understand that. There’s nothing to clarify here, we’re all in good understanding about what the facts are. Obviously, y’all don’t think the quote is genuine, so if ever y’all are tempted to attribute it to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should. But, we live in a big world full of people with different opinions.

Guess no one ever explained that to y’all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/29/2014 @ 20:39
mkfreeberg: So the whole thing about romantic vs. enlightenment, at the end of it, turns out to be entirely unfounded.

That is incorrect. We gave valid reasons for the distinction, and it led to a confirmed prediction.

mkfreeberg: Y’all have not produced any writing of Washington to the effect that government is a reliable/faithful/honest servant, or a benign/benevolent/nurturing master.

YOU yourself provided excerpts showing that Washington thought of government as a reflection of its citizens, not as some detached personality.

mkfreeberg: But meanwhile. The facts are clear.
http://www.mountvernon.org

Yes, experts have determined the quote is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 06/30/2014 @ 04:49
Yes, experts have determined the quote is likely spurious.

To repeat: Some of us have actually been experts, and understand the limitations.

The term itself doesn’t mean much at all, which is noteworthy since y’all’s argument rests entirely on this, even this bit of deception about romantic vs. enlightenment. I’m an expert on object-oriented design patterns; within a group of software developers, I can be, and have been, singled out for my understanding in how to implement Singleton and Chain-of-Responsibility and Abstract Factory. But I haven’t used Flyweight. I’d have to defer to another expert on that, or else, flail around with it as I learn like any newbie. And for those three, even, you wouldn’t have to look far for a professional who is better acquainted with them than I am. Oh, but next year, some new technology may come out, and before you know it there will be someone else who knows more than they do. That’s the exciting thing about it, really, the technology is constantly changing. The field runs on genuine science, in the sense that nobody is truly anointed.

I’m an expert on playing “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” on the violin. Or, was. I used to be able to eke out a few notes and demonstrate I’d bothered to practice playing them. But, my performance was never up to par. And nowadays, my fingers don’t move that fast.

And then there is the kind of expertise that is nothing more than having a very strong opinion, with no solid evidence offered of even being able to produce a correct answer more often than a roll of the dice. I’m an expert on not liking NCIS. I think my reasons are pretty sound, but they’re really just opinions. How many NCIS fans know more about the show than I do? Probably all of them.

And that’s how I think y’all’s experts are experts on what George Washington said. They’re liberals who figured out it is damaging to their argument to recognize any similarities between Washington’s opinions, and the opinions of modern conservatives, so they have a lot of passion about spray-painting over this part of history, even though in Sections 17 and 18 of the Farewell Address it is clear Washington did not part company with conservative ideas about the dangers of too much government, and too much faith invested in it. I think they’re experts on Washington the way I’m an expert on eggplant, merely having a really strong opinion about it but not actually being able to produce correct answers.

The way Barack Obama is an “expert” on the Constitution.
- mkfreeberg | 07/01/2014 @ 05:12
mkfreeberg: And that’s how I think y’all’s experts are experts on what George Washington said. They’re liberals who figured out it is damaging to their argument to recognize any similarities between Washington’s opinions, and the opinions of modern conservatives

Heh.

We have provided expert opinion that supports our position. YOU have provided expert opinion that supports our position. We have provided excerpts from Washington that support our position. YOU have provided excerpts from Washington that support our position. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your own position.
- Zachriel | 07/01/2014 @ 09:56
We have provided expert opinion that supports our position.

Right. The “Washington didn’t write that way because he was a man of enlightenment” argument, ultimately, doesn’t hold so y’all did this little dodge over to “What we mean to say is that Washington didn’t feel that way about government.” But when we see what his relationships were with the other Founding Fathers who also weren’t too trusting of large intrusive governments, we see that doesn’t hold up either, so now y’all are taking refuge in “The experts agree with us” — that way y’all don’t have to explain anything.

When I pointed out y’all don’t know who these experts are, y’all listed the staff of Mt. Vernon association. Hey, it could be a “Per Curiam” ruling of sorts out of all of them, it’s possible. But, since the page is not proofread that well, it’s more likely just one person with a lefty axe to grind.

And, the lefties do have an axe to grind. Wherever a Founding Father expresses sentiments in opposition to the great statist utopia lefties want to build, there are lefties doing their darnedest to “falsify” an “urban legend” or “spurious quote.” Well look, it is useful knowledge to have that there’s no record of Washington saying this between 1799 and 1902. But, it’s also useful knowledge to have that there isn’t anyone so skeptically researching the quote’s origins, between 1902 and whenever this Occupy Wall Street hipster “Washington Expert” woke up, asked his mom to bring him some breakfast in bed, got in an Internet argument in a chat room somewhere, and decided right there in his footsie pajamas that s/he doesn’t like this quote and darn it, it must be spurious. Well, he’s entitled to his opinion and so are y’all.

But at the end of the day, all y’all have shown is that a phobia against other people accomplishing things with minimal interference from a constitutionally-controlled and contained government, leads to a phobia against history, and a desire to chip away at it and remove it.

Orwell would be proud! Or creeped out. Wear jammies, drink hot chocolate and talk about health insurance.

- mkfreeberg | 07/02/2014 @ 05:11
mkfreeberg</b: The “Washington didn’t write that way because he was a man of enlightenment” argument, ultimately, doesn’t hold so y’all did this little dodge over to “What we mean to say is that Washington didn’t feel that way about government.”

Washington didn’t think about government like that because his mode of thought was of the Enlightenment. Of note, the excerpts you yourself provided support this claim.

mkfreeberg</b: But when we see what his relationships were with the other Founding Fathers who also weren’t too trusting of large intrusive governments, we see that doesn’t hold up either, so now y’all are taking refuge in “The experts agree with us” — that way y’all don’t have to explain anything.

We didn’t say he trusted large intrusive governments. He clearly did.

mkfreeberg</b: When I pointed out y’all don’t know who these experts are, y’all listed the staff of Mt. Vernon association.

Yes, which includes professional historians and documentarians.

mkfreeberg</b: doesn’t like this quote and darn it, it must be spurious.

Actually, we provided expert opinion that the quote is likely spurious. Heh. YOU provided expert opinion that the quote is likely spurious!

mkfreeberg</b: But, it’s also useful knowledge to have that there isn’t anyone so skeptically researching the quote’s origins

Help yourself. Let us know when your paper is published.
- Zachriel | 07/02/2014 @ 05:48
Edit would be nice, or preview.
- Zachriel | 07/02/2014 @ 05:49
Washington clearly did *not* trust large intrusive government, however, he also understood the need for a strong central government, and was a Federalist.
- Zachriel | 07/02/2014 @ 07:17
Washington clearly did *not* trust large intrusive government, however, he also understood the need for a strong central government, and was a Federalist.

Little known fact about Washington: America was younger during his administration, than during all the other ones!

Actually, we provided expert opinion that the quote is likely spurious. Heh. YOU provided expert opinion that the quote is likely spurious!

And I also pointed out, in the end, that is all there is. “Washington didn’t write that way because he was a man of the enlightenment” has been exposed as equivocation fallacy. Once I exposed it as such, y’all retreated to “Washington didn’t feel that way about government.” Once I exposed that as a falsehood, and y’all conceded I was correct, y’all retreated into “the experts have spoken,” which is always convenient, since when one bases an argument on that one can ignore all these pesky details.

Trouble is, the experts don’t know anything. They’re relying on feeling, and when you rely on feeling, you nullify the benefits of expertise. At this point, y’all are backed up against a wall and now y’all just keep repeating “the experts have spoken, the experts have spoken” over and over again.

Meanwhile, y’all have failed gloriously to demote this bit of Washington legend to “I cannot tell a lie I chopped down the cherry tree” status. It is very clear now that, although there is no evidence to prove the fire/master quote the same way one might prove Roosevelt’s “day which will live in infamy” quote, there also is not enough evidence to make it as questionable as “I’m here all week, try the veal.”

It is a bit of history. It’s history just like most of what we “know” Socrates said. It’s handed down to us from the generations that came before, and we have to form reasonable opinions about whether or not to believe it. But in providing reasons to question it, best y’all have done is merely go through the motions. Cargo cult thinking leads to cargo cult behavior.

By the way: There would be no retraction necessary even if the quote was demoted to “cherry tree” status. Suppose I chopped down a cherry tree and got caught lying about it; it would be quite legitimate of me to say “Oh well, guess I’m not as good as George Washington!” Would y’all get stomp-footy over that and demand a retraction because “Washington never said that”?

Silly.
- mkfreeberg | 07/03/2014 @ 06:33
mkfreeberg: “Washington didn’t write that way because he was a man of the enlightenment” has been exposed as equivocation fallacy.

It’s not an equivocation. They are different, but related claims.

mkfreeberg: They’re relying on feeling, and when you rely on feeling, you nullify the benefits of expertise.

We didn’t rely on feeling. We had a justified suspicion, but then verified it by checking expert opinion.

mkfreeberg: At this point, y’all are backed up against a wall and now y’all just keep repeating “the experts have spoken, the experts have spoken” over and over again.

The experts could certainly be wrong, but you have provided no evidence that calls into question the validity of their conclusions. Saying experts can be wrong is not the same as saying experts on wrong in this particular matter.

mkfreeberg: It’s history just like most of what we “know” Socrates said.

The life and works of Socrates was written down by his contemporaries, including his students. The purported quote of George Washington appears whole-cloth a century after his death, even though the life and times of Washington are well-documented.
- Zachriel | 07/03/2014 @ 10:18
The experts could certainly be wrong, but you have provided no evidence that calls into question the validity of their conclusions.

What I’ve done, is shown that y’all’s assertion relies solely on this “expert” conclusion and on nothing else. All the rest of it, the “Washington didn’t write that way” and “Washington didn’t feel that way about government,” is chicanery.

That, in turn, shows what should have been obvious: Liberals have an invested interest in stripping our understanding of Washington, along with the rest of the Founding Fathers, of any hostility against big-government solution. Which means they have to do a lot of changing. That, all by itself, is enough to falsify y’all’s statement “you have provided no evidence that calls into question the validity of their conclusions,” since y’all didn’t perform the very first step in relying on expert statements about history: Making sure none of the experts were liberals.

It is y’all who have failed to debunk the fire/servant/master quote down to the level of “I chopped down the cherry tree” status. After don’t-know-how-many-posts, all y’all have proven is that there are people on the Internet who consider themselves very well informed, even though they can’t actually be told anything.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 05:58
mkfreeberg: What I’ve done, is shown that y’all’s assertion relies solely on this “expert” conclusion and on nothing else.

It relies primarily on expert opinion, which confirmed our original suspicion based on our knowledge of Washington and his times. You have provided no evidence to call into question that expert opinion.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 06:50
It relies primarily on expert opinion, which confirmed…

Didn’t read anything after this.

It’s false.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 14:56
mkfreeberg: It’s false.

In fact, in our very first statement was a reference to expert opinion.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 15:10
In fact, in our very first statement was a reference to expert opinion.

In fact, I showed that’s all y’all have. All the rest of y’all’s argument is chicanery.

And we really know next to nothing about this “expert” opinion.

Conclusion: The quote is “spurious”…the same way the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.
- mkfreeberg | 07/04/2014 @ 16:10
mkfreeberg: In fact, I showed that’s all y’all have.

So, on one side we have an expert opinion we provided that the attribution is likely spurious, plus an expert opinion you provided that the attribution is likely spurious. We also have the content of the purported quote being inconsistent with Washington’s writings, modes of thought, and other statements on government (which you helpfully provided.

On the other side, we have nothing. The preponderance of the argument is that the attribution is likely spurious.
- Zachriel | 07/04/2014 @ 18:21
The preponderance of the argument is that the attribution is likely spurious.

The same way the Internet will never be more important than the fax machine.
- mkfreeberg | 07/05/2014 @ 13:12
mkfreeberg: The same way the Internet will never be more important than the fax machine.

Have you abandoned the discussion about George Washington, then?
- Zachriel | 07/05/2014 @ 18:11
Have you abandoned the discussion about George Washington, then?

Y’all have offered no reason for me to do so, whatsoever, outside of “expert opinion” — and I’ve just shown how worthless that is.

I’ve also shown that everything outside of the “expert opinion,” notably the “Washington wouldn’t have written that” (which is part of the expert opinion) — is chicanery.
- mkfreeberg | 07/06/2014 @ 05:42
mkfreeberg: Y’all have offered no reason for me to do so, whatsoever, outside of “expert opinion” — and I’ve just shown how worthless that is.

Expert opinion is not infallible, but when confronted with a very sick child, most parents call a doctor for medical advice, not ask a random person on the street for their medical opinion. Are they wrong to do so?

So, on one side we have an expert opinion we provided that the attribution is likely spurious, plus an expert opinion you provided that the attribution is likely spurious. We also have the content of the purported quote being inconsistent with Washington’s writings, modes of thought, and other statements on government (which you helpfully provided. On the other side, we have nothing. Weigh the scales yourself.
- Zachriel | 07/06/2014 @ 06:46
Yes, the facts on both sides are clear. Nobody knows the origins of the quote, but if ever y’all are tempted to associate it with George Washington’s name, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it.
- mkfreeberg | 07/07/2014 @ 19:20
mkfreeberg: Nobody knows the origins of the quote

That’s right, so we assume you will correct your attribution.,
- Zachriel | 07/08/2014 @ 03:05
That’s right, so we assume you will correct your attribution.,

Y’all can assume that. But that’s just acting out y’all’s tried-and-true exercise of never learning anything.
- mkfreeberg | 07/08/2014 @ 06:44
mkfreeberg: Y’all can assume that. But that’s just acting out y’all’s tried-and-true exercise of never learning anything.

Let’s see if we understand correctly. You say no one knows the origin of the quote, but you will continue to attribute it to George Washington. Just checking.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington
- Zachriel | 07/08/2014 @ 11:36
You say no one knows the origin of the quote, but you will continue to attribute it to George Washington. Just checking.

I’m saying no correction is needed. I’m right about that, aren’t I?

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — Socrates
- mkfreeberg | 07/09/2014 @ 05:28
mkfreeberg: I’m saying no correction is needed. I’m right about that, aren’t I?

On the one hand, you claim that no one knows the origin of the quote; and on the other hand, you attribute the quote to George Washington. Yes, such an inconsistency usually results in a correction.
- Zachriel | 07/09/2014 @ 09:21
On the one hand, you claim that no one knows the origin of the quote; and on the other hand, you attribute the quote to George Washington. Yes, such an inconsistency usually results in a correction.

And, that’s where the disagreement is. Y’all are simply incorrect.

Think about how that would work. “Churchill said ‘This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put’.” Oops — need a correction. “Socrates said ‘Wisdom begins in wonder’.” Oops — correction. There is a God. Oops — correction.

It would ultimately negate, or “correct,” just about everything that is history. I suppose that’s the point, isn’t it?
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 06:09
mkfreeberg: And, that’s where the disagreement is.

Sure. We think you should have support for a claim before making it.

mkfreeberg: Think about how that would work. “Churchill said ‘This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put’.” Oops — need a correction.

Not a problem. Churchill said {apocryphally} “This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put.”

mkfreeberg: Think“Socrates said ‘Wisdom begins in wonder’.”

Not a problem. “Wisdom begins in wonder.” a paraphrase of Socrates from Plato’s Theatetus. The actual quote is “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.”

See how easy that was?
- Zachriel | 07/10/2014 @ 06:29
Primary takeaway:

The facts, on both sides, are clear — and to both sides. There is nothing left to be explained. There’s no correction necessary because there is no mis-attribution. If ever y’all are tempted to attribute the fire/servant/master quote to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it is clear y’all don’t think George Washington said it. But, we live in a big world full of people with different opinions, be y’all ready for that or not; y’all have not provided any solid evidence that the quote is actually mis-attributed So, others may disagree, and their disagreement, until some more evidence comes to light, is reasonable.

Secondary takeaway:

The Zachriel do not actually “discuss.” What they call a “discussion” is actually the recitation of a script, and they get all twisted & bent out of shape if the other side does not follow the script they’ve got planned. Essentially, they confuse a monologue with a dialogue, and vice-versa. In continuing to act this out, they show the mentality of those who suffer from CBTA (Can’t Be Told Anything) disease; those who go through the motions of learning much, while actually learning nothing. And why & how those people consistently end up being what we today call “liberals.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/10/2014 @ 18:39
mkfreeberg: The Zachriel do not actually “discuss.”

We do consider your position. You said “Nobody knows the origins of the quote”, but insist on attributing it to George Washington.

mkfreeberg: There’s no correction necessary because there is no mis-attribution.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 04:57
We do consider your position.

Y’all have commented on these threads, in many places & often. From what I have seen, y’all consider unwelcome positions the same way President Obama is “not interested in photo ops.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/11/2014 @ 05:46
mkfreeberg: From what I have seen, y’all consider unwelcome positions the same way President Obama is “not interested in photo ops.”

We’re very interested in responses, however, like any claim, they should be supported, and are subject to criticism. Generally, you simply refuse to directly engage discussions of your own claims. This is a prime example. It’s quite obvious that experts consider the quote spurious, and you have not provided any evidence to indicate otherwise; but you continue to support the original attribution, while trying to change the subject. Here’s our first comment on the thread:

mkfreeberg: George Washington had it right.

The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said. The quote is spurious.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 05:51
We’re very interested in responses, however, like any claim, they should be supported, and are subject to criticism.

But, that is not what I see y’all doing.
- mkfreeberg | 07/11/2014 @ 05:53
mkfreeberg: But, that is not what I see y’all doing.

We have supported our position by providing a citation to an authoritative source. We have responded to each and every one of your relevant comments, and some of your irrelevant comments too, elaborating on the point, asking relevant questions, answering relevant questions, providing support all along.

Your position is that it is reasonable to attribute the quote to Washington even though you yourself have determined “Nobody knows the origins of the quote.”
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 05:57
We pointed out that error four months ago! All you would have had to do was say “apocryphal”. Or “often attributed to”. But you won’t even take that simple step.
- Zachriel | 07/11/2014 @ 06:05
We have supported our position by providing a citation to an authoritative source.

Y’all also have demonstrated an acute lack of understanding of the facts, failing even to recognize the initials “WM” which are central to the question of the quote’s origins — assuming that it is, as y’all have so emphatically insisted, spurious.

The facts, on both sides, are clear — and to both sides. There is nothing left to be explained. There’s no correction necessary because there is no mis-attribution. If ever y’all are tempted to attribute the fire/servant/master quote to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it is clear y’all don’t think George Washington said it. But, we live in a big world full of people with different opinions, be y’all ready for that or not; y’all have not provided any solid evidence that the quote is actually mis-attributed So, others may disagree, and their disagreement, until some more evidence comes to light, is reasonable.
- mkfreeberg | 07/12/2014 @ 06:32
mkfreeberg: the initials “WM” which are central to the question of the quote’s origins

Right. The attribution depends on an anonymous attribution in a Christian Science journal over a century after Washington’s death.

Keep in mind that you yourself have said that nobody knows the origins of the quote. Yet, you insist on attributing it to Washington.
- Zachriel | 07/12/2014 @ 06:54
Keep in mind that you yourself have said that nobody knows the origins of the quote.

And that all of history, or nearly all of it, could be debunked by way of an irresponsible rationale of “If you can’t prove it, it must not have happened.”

In gutting history as we act on such a reckless rationale, we would no doubt have to start with the things we think Socrates said. Darn that Plato, why should we trust him.
- mkfreeberg | 07/17/2014 @ 06:03
mkfreeberg: And that all of history, or nearly all of it, could be debunked by way of an irresponsible rationale of “If you can’t prove it, it must not have happened.”

Supporting a claim may not require proof, but it does require a preponderance of the evidence.

mkfreeberg: start with the things we think Socrates said.

The teachings and history of Socrates were written down by his contemporaries. Multiple contemporaneous sources lends confidence to our understanding of Socrates.

Washington, on the other hands, is much closer to our own time, and surrounded people who were avid writers, and was an avid writer himself, yet we have no contemporaneous record of the purported quote, or anything like it.
- Zachriel | 07/17/2014 @ 06:27
The facts, on both sides, are clear — and to both sides. There is nothing left to be explained. There’s no correction necessary because there is no mis-attribution. If ever y’all are tempted to attribute the fire/servant/master quote to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it is clear y’all don’t think George Washington said it. But, we live in a big world full of people with different opinions, be y’all ready for that or not; y’all have not provided any solid evidence that the quote is actually mis-attributed So, others may disagree, and their disagreement, until some more evidence comes to light, is reasonable.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 09:24
mkfreeberg: But, we live in a big world full of people with different opinions

Sure. You claim that making an unsupported claim is reasonable. We disagree.
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 10:25
Sure. You claim that making an unsupported claim is reasonable. We disagree.

If it isn’t reasonable, then most of history must be unreasonable, since we “know” most of history exactly the same way we know this thing: It’s handed down from previous generations, and the decision is left up to us to take it at face value, or not.

Y’all have conjured up, with the blessing of “experts,” whose expertise has not been solidly established, that some of the gaps that exist in this must not exist if the claim is legitimate. Interesting opinion, but it’s just an opinion and nothing more. And this kind of “logic” would falsify nearly all of what we “know” about history.

This is probably the part where we admit, a lot of liberal “experts” are in a big hurry to debunk this because they find it to be inconvenient. But using their criteria, we would have to declare “spurious” most of the things we “know” about what Socrates said.

They should own their own problems and quit bothering other people with them. But of course, if they could do that then they probably wouldn’t be liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 16:39
mkfreeberg: If it isn’t reasonable, then most of history must be unreasonable, since we “know” most of history exactly the same way we know this thing: It’s handed down from previous generations, and the decision is left up to us to take it at face value, or not.

No. Histories are based on objective criteria, not subjective preferences.

You yourself said no one knows the origin of the quote, so attributing it to Washington is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 16:46
No. Histories are based on objective criteria, not subjective preferences.

They are handed down to us from previous generations, and then it’s up to us to decide whether or not to accept them.

Most of the quotes from Socrates fall into this category. So I guess they never actually happened?

“I’m here all week, try the veal.” — Socrates.
- mkfreeberg | 07/19/2014 @ 17:35
mkfreeberg: They are handed down to us from previous generations, and then it’s up to us to decide whether or not to accept them.

That’s a very odd view, to think that the study of history is strictly subjective.

History is “the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine and analyse a sequence of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause and effect that determine them.”
- Zachriel | 07/19/2014 @ 18:41
That’s a very odd view, to think that the study of history is strictly subjective.

So now y’all seek to manufacture a conflict between the objective and the subjective.

Alright, I’ll bite. What is subjective about supposing W.M. recorded Washington’s words accurately, and objective about supposing Plato recorded Socrates’ words accurately? Is there some meaningful differentiation between the two situations, along the opposite meanings of subjective & objective?
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 01:51
mkfreeberg: So now y’all seek to manufacture a conflict between the objective and the subjective.

Um, subjective and objective are antonyms.

mkfreeberg: What is subjective about supposing W.M. recorded Washington’s words accurately, and objective about supposing Plato recorded Socrates’ words accurately?

Your use of the terms is incoherent.

It’s objective that W.M. wrote down something he attributed to George Washington. It’s objective that we have a number of sources for the words of Socrates. While the latter provides us with a strong record of provenance, the former leaves us with a significant problem of provenance.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 05:44
Um, subjective and objective are antonyms.

Um, true.

It’s objective that W.M. wrote down something he attributed to George Washington. It’s objective that we have a number of sources for the words of Socrates. While the latter provides us with a strong record of provenance, the former leaves us with a significant problem of provenance.

That doesn’t answer the question. And it seems y’all are using the term “objective” to describe propositions y’all happen to like.

But there are actually quite a few things we “know” Socrates said, for which there are not “a number of sources for the words.” In many cases, it’s Plato and Plato alone, who isn’t around to provide foundation for these claims any more than W.M. So I guess we’d all better get started scrubbing this history.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — Socrates.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 09:20
mkfreeberg: And it seems y’all are using the term “objective” to describe propositions y’all happen to like.

Objective is not a matter of “like”. “Like” is subjective.

mkfreeberg: In many cases, it’s Plato and Plato alone

Plato was a direct witness of Socrates, and there are many overlaps between Plato and what others wrote about Socrates to both paint a picture of Socrates and his philosophy, as well as the dependability of Plato. W.M. was not a direct witness, didn’t reference any direct witness, cited no source, there is a long historical gap, and the quote doesn’t comport with anything Washington said elsewhere.

More important, though, you say it is reasonable to attribute the statement to Washington, even though you have said no one knows its source.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 11:01
mkfreeberg: And it seems y’all are using the term “objective” to describe propositions y’all happen to like.

Z: Objective is not a matter of “like”. “Like” is subjective.

Well…that would be a problem.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 12:53
mkfreeberg: Well…that would be a problem.

objective, based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 13:08
objective, based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings.

So y’all understand the definition, just have problems implementing it or recognizing y’all’s failure to implement it.
- mkfreeberg | 07/20/2014 @ 17:28
mkfreeberg: So y’all understand the definition

Yes, you will notice that we used objective facts to support our position.

Plato was a direct witness of Socrates, and there are many overlaps between Plato and what others wrote about Socrates to both paint a picture of Socrates and his philosophy, as well as the dependability of Plato. W.M. was not a direct witness, didn’t reference any direct witness, cited no source, there is a long historical gap, and the quote doesn’t comport with anything Washington said elsewhere.
- Zachriel | 07/20/2014 @ 18:35
Yes, you will notice that we used objective facts to support our position.

Actually, no I don’t. In particular, the method by which y’all decide what’s a “fact,” and which of these facts are due some excessive weight, and which are to be ignored, seems very subjective. The method is consistently favorable to liberals and democrats. I’m not the only one to notice this.

For example,

…and the quote doesn’t comport with anything Washington said elsewhere.

See, that’s subjective. Y’all have been given an opportunity to point out how it doesn’t comport with Washington’s views of government. Y’all have failed to do this. Y’all have been given an opportunity to point out how it doesn’t comport with Washington’s literary style. Y’all have failed to do that too.

But I can certainly see how, if one seeks to sell a vision of government that agrees with the modern American liberal’s vision of government, it is very important to overlook any quibbles any of the Founding Fathers had with a sprawling, bloated, leviathan government.
- mkfreeberg | 07/21/2014 @ 17:49
mkfreeberg: Actually, no I don’t.

Which of these statements do you not considered established as fact?

W.M. was not a direct witness.
W.M. didn’t reference any direct witness.
W.M. cited no source.
There is a long historical gap between Washington and W.M.
The quote doesn’t comport with anything Washington said elsewhere.

Zachriel: …and the quote doesn’t comport with anything Washington said elsewhere.

mkfreeberg: See, that’s subjective.

No, it’s well-supported. We have thousands of Washington’s letters, his journals, his speeches, as well as voluminous writings about Washington by his contemporaries. There’s nothing like the purported quote in any of the available documentation. This is further supported by expert opinion.
- Zachriel | 07/22/2014 @ 05:03
W.M. cited no source.

In many cases, neither did Plato.

There’s nothing like the purported quote in any of the available documentation.

False. Y’all have had ample opportunity to demonstrate this, and y’all haven’t succeeded.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2014 @ 05:04
mkfreeberg: Y’all have had ample opportunity to demonstrate this

Which we have. We have cited the letters of George Washington and his journals, as well as contemporary records. You yourself even cited text from Washington that expresses a different philosophy of government, one where government is a reflection of its constituents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
- Zachriel | 07/24/2014 @ 05:27
We have cited the letters of George Washington and his journals, as well as contemporary records.

Right. Y’all said this wasn’t anything Washington would have said. Asked what y’all meant by that, y’all subtly implied that it wasn’t consistent with Washington’s impression of government, without out-and-out saying this. Then y’all subtly implied that it wasn’t consistent with his use of the written word, without out-and-out saying so, hiding behind some balderdash about “Enligthenment” versus “Romantic.” Then y’all shifted back to the view-of-government thing. Then back to the enlightenment/romantic thing. Then back again. And again. And again. Then y’all got called out on it (not by me).

It sure does take a lot of tinkering to get liberalism to fit into truth…or rather, to “gut” the truth so that liberalism might fit into it. “Sure my fat ass can fit in this 1984 Honda Civic, just as soon as we get rid of some nonessentials, like the front seat…and the back seat…and the engine…”
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2014 @ 15:55
mkfreeberg: Y’all said this wasn’t anything Washington would have said.

We said, “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said.” We checked with an authoritative source before posting.

mkfreeberg: some balderdash about “Enligthenment” versus “Romantic.”

It’s hardly balderdash, but the most important philosophical shift of the period. Washington was many things, but a Romantic was not one of them.

In any case, you have said no one knows the source of the quote, but still consider it reasonable to attribute it to Washington.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2014 @ 16:33
We said, “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said.” We checked with an authoritative source before posting.

That’s the trouble with passive-voice logic. Y’all haven’t been able to coherently explain the rationale, in spite of having had many opportunities to.

It’s hardly balderdash, but the most important philosophical shift of the period. Washington was many things, but a Romantic was not one of them.

But you don’t have to be a Romantic to originate that quote. I’ve already provided passages from the Farewell Address written with the same literary style — by George Washington. When I did so, y’all (once again) shifted the disagreement to Washington’s views about government.

Given the premise that we could summon Washington back from the dead and ask his opinion, and given the premise that y’all are correct and W.M. did fabricate this quote, what is his more likely reaction:

1. No, I didn’t say that, and wouldn’t; government is a desirable servant and a benevolent master.

2. No, I didn’t say that but that’s a good thought to bear in mind, there is danger involved in thinking government is the solution to every problem.

?
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2014 @ 06:20
mkfreeberg: Y’all haven’t been able to coherently explain the rationale, in spite of having had many opportunities to.

We provided arguments and evidence to support the contention it wasn’t consistent with Washington’s words or letters. Even your own excerpts from Washington support this position. But we didn’t rely upon this, but deferred to expert opinion.

mkfreeberg: I’ve already provided passages from the Farewell Address written with the same literary style — by George Washington.

We was clear, the excerpts do not resemble the purported quote in either style or philosophy. Washington’s Farewell Address is very much in the tradition of the Enlightenment, and sees government as a reflect of its constituents.
- Zachriel | 07/26/2014 @ 06:44
We provided arguments and evidence to support the contention it wasn’t consistent with Washington’s words or letters.

YEAH. These anonymous unnamed people over here, are pointing to that anonymous unnamed person over there, who doesn’t think it’s something Washington would have said. If he’s being honest about it, which is doubtful.

If the Founding Fathers wanted to build a system of bloated, sprawling, unlimited government, it would have been real easy for them to do so. Although maybe not to sell it to their contemporaries who might’ve been wondering what was the up-side to a revolution — why bother to throw off one intrusive and oppressive government for sake of starting another one.
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2014 @ 12:58
mkfreeberg: These anonymous unnamed people over here, are pointing to that anonymous unnamed person over there, who doesn’t think it’s something Washington would have said.

No, we cited the Mount Vernon Association which employs historians and documentaries who have access to a large collection of original documents, including the letters of George Washington, his journals, and other contemporaneous records.

mkfreeberg: If the Founding Fathers wanted to build a system of bloated, sprawling, unlimited government, it would have been real easy for them to do so.

There was general agreement that the original Articles of Confederation was too weak. The Constitution that was adopted entailed a much stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation. Washington was a Federalist, and came down on the side of a stronger central government.
- Zachriel | 07/26/2014 @ 13:50
No, we cited the Mount Vernon Association which employs historians and documentaries who have access to a large collection of original documents, including the letters of George Washington, his journals, and other contemporaneous records.

Who gave their — or his, or her, y’all don’t know which — opinion. Which may not be correct. And was based on a job of research that is incomplete, must be incomplete, will always be incomplete.

Just like most of what we know about “history,” all of which we’d have to invalidate if we proceeded according to y’all’s standards. As an example of this ridiculousness I offered the “quotes” from Socrates which we found out about only from Plato, which constitutes most of what we “know” about what Socrates said.

Y’all’s solution to the conundrum, as usual, is to simply allow The Zachriel to decide on a case-by-case basis which parts of history are to be erased. Thus, the Socrates quotes are not invalidated, but the Washington quote, which is inconvenient to modern liberal dogma, predictably, must be.

So now we know where y’all went awry. Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions. Y’all have produced experts who agree with y’all’s side of it, but they have no expert opinions to offer because they have no expert facts to offer before 1902. There’s nothing factual to be cleared up here, at all, and having reviewed it several times now I see nothing in need of clarification or correction. If y’all want to subordinate y’all’s own reasoning process to these experts, who don’t have the factual basis to conclude what y’all are so satisfied that they have concluded, with the level of certainty y’all plainly wish was imbued into their conclusions, then y’all go right ahead. Others prefer to think for themselves. And that’s fine. That’s how things that actually work, get built.
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 06:12
mkfreeberg: As an example of this ridiculousness I offered the “quotes” from Socrates which we found out about only from Plato, which constitutes most of what we “know” about what Socrates said.

Plato knew Socrates, and he is not the only source concerning Socrates. We already informed you of this, so it’s not clear why you repeat the error.

mkfreeberg: Y’all have produced experts who agree with y’all’s side of it, but they have no expert opinions to offer because they have no expert facts to offer before 1902.

When you have reasonable evidence to support the attribution, let us know.
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 06:19
Plato knew Socrates, and he is not the only source concerning Socrates.

With many of Socrates’ quotes, Plato is the only source.

So y’all are saying the situation is different because Plato personally knew him. Right, and my Mom “knew” I did a lot of stuff and it turned out later it was my brother who did that.

Point is, history is not a measurement and it isn’t a recording — usually. Much of it is testament. This is how liberals lose arguments, y’all have laid down this “rule” that testimony shouldn’t count, and I’ve correctly pointed out waitaminnit, that’s exactly what history is, for the most part. And now you’re going homina-homina trying to parse it with yet more rules: The person who says, has to personally know the subject THEN it’s okay, otherwise no.

This is why liberals can’t & won’t build anything that actually works. When they fail their own standards, they have to re-define the standards.
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 07:07
mkfreeberg: With many of Socrates’ quotes, Plato is the only source.

Plato had first-hand knowledge of Socrates, and has credibility because there are other sources to help determine the veracity of his accounts.

mkfreeberg: y’all have laid down this “rule” that testimony shouldn’t count

How can you still mangle our position? Testimony is an important part of history. However, you haven’t presented testimony, just a quote by an unidentified person a century after Washington’s death in a Christian Science journal who cites no sources. Furthermore, experts who have studied the issue believe the attribution is spurious. Your own cited experts say the same!

More important, you yourself have said no one knows whether the attribution is accurate or not, but you insist on attributing it to Washington.
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 07:12
Plato had first-hand knowledge of Socrates, and has credibility because there are other sources to help determine the veracity of his accounts.

Do people who “have credibility” get things wrong?
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 07:13
mkfreeberg: Do people who “have credibility” get things wrong?

Absolutely, which is why scholars look for multiple lines of evidence. In this case, we have many people who knew and wrote about Socrates. With Washington, we have even stronger documentary evidence.
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 07:22
M: Do people who “have credibility” get things wrong?

Z: Absolutely…

Do people who lack this credibility, get things right?
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2014 @ 10:38
mkfreeberg: Do people who lack this credibility, get things right?

Sure. However, reasonable people don’t base their conclusions on unsupported guesses.
- Zachriel | 07/27/2014 @ 11:03
If people who have this credibility get things wrong, and people who lack this credibility get things right, then logic dictates that this “credibility” proves nothing.

I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 07/29/2014 @ 06:28
mkfreeberg: If people who have this credibility get things wrong, and people who lack this credibility get things right, then logic dictates that this “credibility” proves nothing.

Nothing is ‘proven’ in science. Rather, claims are supported or contradicted by evidence.
- Zachriel | 07/29/2014 @ 07:20
Nothing is ‘proven’ in science. Rather, claims are supported or contradicted by evidence.

Well if y’all ever come across some “evidence” that falsifies the quote, let me know.

So far, all y’all have presented is: Here is an unnamed expert who doubts it; and, it doesn’t seem like anything Washington would have said.

The first could be motivated purely by political ideology. Which is a significant problem. A liberal economist, as Paul Krugman has proven over & over again, is a liberal first and an economist second. A liberal journalist is a liberal first and a journalist second. A liberal meteorology expert is a liberal first and second, and maybe third, with the meteorology stuff being a distant afterthought. Thus far, y’all have not presented any evidence that the ranks of these experts were purged of any & all liberals, prior to their “expert” opinions being recorded.

And the second one is provably false. If indeed the quote was manufactured after Washington’s demise, it has taken root in our recollection of him precisely because it does seem to be something Washington, and many other Founding Fathers, would have said. That inconvenient fact, I’m thinking, is y’all’s real problem with it.
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2014 @ 07:06
mkfreeberg: Well if y’all ever come across some “evidence” that falsifies the quote, let me know.

That’s funny. You make a claim, but it’s up to others to disprove it before you’ll abandon it.
- Zachriel | 08/03/2014 @ 07:10
That’s funny. You make a claim, but it’s up to others to disprove it before you’ll abandon it.

What would be funny would be people making claims, and then abandoning them just because others, total strangers, want them to abandon them.
- mkfreeberg | 08/27/2014 @ 06:13
mkfreeberg: What would be funny would be people making claims …

Claims they are unable to support.
- Zachriel | 08/27/2014 @ 07:45
Claims they are unable to support.

The most relevant claim I’m seeing unsupported here, is the claim that the Washington quote is spurious. The only support I’ve seen for that is someone looked for documentary evidence of the attribution before 1904, and they quit before they found any.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2014 @ 08:57
mkfreeberg: The most relevant claim I’m seeing unsupported here, is the claim that the Washington quote is spurious.

The unsupported claim is that Washington made the quote. The only so-called support is an anonymous attribution in a Christian Science journal a century after Washington’s death.
- Zachriel | 08/31/2014 @ 09:21
The unsupported claim is that Washington made the quote.

No. The claim was that I should make a correction after linking to a resource ascribing the quote to Washington (a quote which has been ascribed to nobody else).

The claim that I should make a correction is still unsupported, so it’s funny that y’all are talking about unsupported claims.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2014 @ 23:25
mkfreeberg: The claim was that I should make a correction after linking to a resource ascribing the quote to Washington (a quote which has been ascribed to nobody else).

When you linked to the resource, you endorsed the attribution. That’s understandable based on what you knew then.

But when it was pointed out that the attribution was likely spurious, instead of making a simple correction, you revealed that you have no concern for accuracy.
- Zachriel | 09/01/2014 @ 07:29
The claim was that I should make a correction after linking to a resource ascribing the quote to Washington (a quote which has been ascribed to nobody else).

The claim that I should make a correction is still unsupported, so it’s funny that y’all are talking about unsupported claims.
- mkfreeberg | 09/03/2014 @ 05:21
mkfreeberg: The claim was that I should make a correction after linking to a resource ascribing the quote to Washington

We provided authoritative evidence that the source was wrong.
- Zachriel | 09/03/2014 @ 05:29
We provided authoritative evidence…

From whom, y’all don’t know. Whose motives are, y’all don’t know what. It isn’t adequate as support, heck, it’s charitable to even call it “support” at all. What y’all have provided is an opinion from a stranger, nothing more.

Now y’all want to start a discussion about unsupported claims. That’s irony for you.
- mkfreeberg | 09/04/2014 @ 19:10
mkfreeberg: From whom, y’all don’t know.

Sure we do. The historians and documentarians at Mount Vernon, with access to original documents from the period, including the letters and journals of George Washington. Indeed, your own citation above considers the quote spurious.
- Zachriel | 09/05/2014 @ 08:16
Sure we do [know “from whom”]. The historians and documentarians at Mount Vernon, with access to original documents from the period, including the letters and journals of George Washington.

That’s not a “whom.”

Y’all don’t know who said this, and y’all don’t know what their motivation was. Indeed, after all’s said & done all y’all have managed to prove is: People, being human, and humans being flawed, have a natural predisposition to leap to conclusions they like, and reject evidence they don’t like.

And, we’ve got a lot of people in our country who aren’t too keen on accepting the fact that the Founding Fathers supported the Revolution because they were opposed to sprawling, unlimited, out-of-control government. They didn’t declare independence from the British just so that FDR could tell tailors how much to charge for mending a shirt, or so that Barack Obama could dictate what medical plans were no longer acceptable.
- mkfreeberg | 09/05/2014 @ 17:12
mkfreeberg: That’s not a “whom.”

Of course it is.
http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/contributors/

As are your own citations you provided above.

mkfreeberg: People, being human, and humans being flawed, have a natural predisposition to leap to conclusions they like, and reject evidence they don’t like.

Sure that’s possible. But to dispute their expert opinion takes more than waving your hands furiously.
- Zachriel | 09/05/2014 @ 18:41
M: That’s not a “whom.”

Z: Of course it is. ((link))

No it isn’t, there are over 70 names listed there.

Johanna Bakmas; D. Jason Berggren, Ph.D.; Emma Bilski; Lydia Mattice Brandt, Ph.D.; Matthew A. Byron, Ph.D.; T. K. Byron, Ph.D.; Scott Craig; Anthony Di Lorenzo; Nicole DiSarno; Charlotte Doney; Alana Donocoff; Shannon E. Duffy, Ph.D.; Carol Ebel, Ph.D.; Meredith Eliassen; William M. Etter, Ph.D.; Mason Faulkner Fields; Siobhan Fitzpatrick; Samuel K. Fore; William F. Fowler, Jr., Ph.D.; Michael P. Gabriel, Ph.D.; Annie Gittess; Cassandra Good, Ph.D.; Kevin Grimm, Ph.D.; Rob Hardy, Ph.D.; Kathryn Harris; Michael D. Hattem; David Head, Ph.D.; Alexander Immekus; Joshua Jeffers; Jared Johnson; Kate Johnson; Maria Kimberly; William P. Kladky, Ph.D.; Peter Kotowski; Nelly Lambert; Cody Lass; Marc Leepson; Chelsea Lenhart; Chris Logsdon; James MacDonald, Ph.D.; Nick McGrath; Jim Mc Intyre; Adam Meehan; Jeffrey Messina; Joseph Meyer, Ph.D.; Curtis F. Morgan, Jr., Ph.D.; Cameron Neilley; Nick Oristian; Russell S. Perkins; Robin Pokorski; Patrick Allan Pospisek; David Alan Rego; Katrina Schoorl; Adam D. Shprintzen, Ph.D.; Stephen Santelli; James M. Scythes; Maria Seidel; Craig Bruce Smith; Mary Stockwell, Ph.D.; Yaari Nadav Tal; Mary V. Thompson; Rahul Tilva; George Tsakiridis, Ph.D.; Katie Uva; Victoria Williams, Ph.D.; Robert Wolfe; Gwendolyn K. White; Amanda Walli; Ben Wynne, Ph.D.; Jeffrey A. Zemler, Ph.D.; Xu, Yijin

And their biographies read something like this:

Rob Hardy is a poet, writer, and research associate in classics at Carleton College. He has won a national poetry chapbook competition, had his adaptation of Aeschylus’s Oresteia performed to sold out audiences at Carleton’s new theater, and had his poetry stamped into downtown sidewalks in Northfield, Minnesota. His scholarship on America and the classical tradition has appeared in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, New England Quarterly, and Dickinson College’s Blog Divided.

Kathryn Harris is studying history at George Washington University. Her primary historical interest is the ideological conception of religious and economic liberty in North America during the Age of Revolution. After completing her undergraduate education, she plans to attend law school with an intention of becoming a public interest lawyer.

In other words — GRAD STUDENTS. Who, when the rubber meets the road, it turns out really don’t have much reason at all to call the quote into question. They found a bit of lore handed down to us from antiquity, much like quotes from Socrates told to us by Plato, that one or two among them happened not to like. Then they started manufacturing some reason to doubt it; and, went on to some other project before they found anything one way or the other. Their conclusion, if y’all bother to read it, rest on what they did not find.

But to dispute their expert opinion takes more than waving your hands furiously.

Actually, to dispute their “expert” opinion doesn’t require anything at all, beyond merely disputing it.

I think y’all saw someone “win” an argument sometime by saying “It takes more than what you’ve brought to dispute X,” and settled into the habit of emulating the tactic without understanding it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 02:07
mkfreeberg: there are over 70 names listed there.

Look for the historians, or try the library staff.
http://www.mountvernon.org/library/contact-the-library-staff/

mkfreeberg: Actually, to dispute their “expert” opinion doesn’t require anything at all, beyond merely disputing it.

Handwaving is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 09/06/2014 @ 05:47
Handwaving is not an argument.

Then why do y’all keep doing it? I pointed out y’all don’t even know who’s denying the quote, y’all replied with this page with names on it, then I pointed out there are over 70 names on there so y’all haven’t answered the question, now y’all are linking me to another page.

We’ve effectively debunked the debunking. Every time I ask for more details I expect the minimum, and I’m still disappointed.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 07:17
mkfreeberg: Then why do y’all keep doing it?

We’re pointing to valid expert opinion, the historians and documentarians at the Mount Vernon Association, the birthplace of George Washington.

In any case, you made the original attribution, but can’t support it beyond “Brainyquote”.
- Zachriel | 09/06/2014 @ 07:24
We’re pointing to valid expert opinion, the historians and documentarians at the Mount Vernon Association, the birthplace of George Washington.

Yeah. Lord knows, nobody could possibly know what they’re talking about if they aren’t opining from the birthplace of George Washington. And if someone does happen to be there, the aura or essence sort of flows into them so they suddenly really know their subject matter.

Maybe they wrote some poetry about it, for their doctoral theses.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 07:26
mkfreeberg: nobody could possibly know what they’re talking about if they aren’t opining from the birthplace of George Washington

Of course they can. However, your own citations said it was a spurious attribution (expert opinion). And you have yet to provide an original source for the quote (evidence).
- Zachriel | 09/06/2014 @ 07:31
M: nobody could possibly know what they’re talking about if they aren’t opining from the birthplace of George Washington

Z: Of course they can.

I agree. The geographic location from which one opines about the verity of Washington quotes, has nothing to do with the accuracy of the resulting opinion. This seems like just common sense, but as long as we had to stop to clear that up, it’s good that we did.

And you have yet to provide an original source for the quote.

There isn’t one, just like there isn’t an original source for many of Socrates’ quotes. So by that logic, those must be spurious as well.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2014 @ 13:00
mkfreeberg: The geographic location from which one opines about the verity of Washington quotes, has nothing to do with the accuracy of the resulting opinion.

It has to do with access to primary documents, as well the methodologies of historians and documentarians.

mkfreeberg: There isn’t one, just like there isn’t an original source for many of Socrates’ quotes.

There is first-hand knowledge of Socrates by a number of writers.
- Zachriel | 09/07/2014 @ 07:13
It has to do with access to primary documents, as well the methodologies of historians and documentarians.

In the 21st century, do we not have ways of accessing information, without practically sitting on top of it? All those centuries going in to shrinking the world, I’d hate to think they were wasted.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2014 @ 05:37
mkfreeberg: In the 21st century, do we not have ways of accessing information, without practically sitting on top of it?

Indeed we do! We invite you to find a primary source that supports the claimed attribution.
- Zachriel | 09/10/2014 @ 05:39
M: In the 21st century, do we not have ways of accessing information, without practically sitting on top of it?

Z: Indeed we do!

Then, how is physical proximity to the documents relevant?
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2014 @ 06:19
mkfreeberg: how is physical proximity to the documents relevant?

Most documents have only recently become available on the Internet. Some are still not available. There’s an institutional history of study concerning these documents at Mount Vernon.

But now that you mention it, we invite you to find a primary source that supports the claimed attribution. Did you even attempt an answer? No.
- Zachriel | 09/10/2014 @ 06:29
Most documents have only recently become available on the Internet. Some are still not available. There’s an institutional history of study concerning these documents at Mount Vernon.

Real experts, then, would admit ignorance.

But now that you mention it, we invite you to find a primary source that supports the claimed attribution. Did you even attempt an answer? No.

That’s okay.

Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2014 @ 23:09
mkfreeberg: Real experts, then, would admit ignorance.

Of course they do, however, they are more likely to be correct about subjects within their field of study than non-experts.

mkfreeberg: But, it’s just an opinion.

An educated opinion consistent with expert opinion, consistent with your own citations, and consistent of what we know of George Washington.

But sure,

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2014 @ 05:50
“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.

We now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2014 @ 17:33
mkfreeberg: But, it’s just an opinion.

The Earth moves is “just an opinion”. The Earth stands still is “just an opinion”. They are not equivalent because they are both opinions. The former “opinion” is supported by a wide variety of evidence, as adduced by experts from many related fields of study.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 05:55
We now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2014 @ 09:24
mkfreeberg: But, it’s just an opinion.

You failed to respond to our last comment. Should we repeat it for you, or can you find it just above your previous comment?
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 09:40
You failed to respond to our last comment. Should we repeat it for you, or can you find it just above your previous comment?

It isn’t necessary, because we have a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2014 @ 10:26
In other words, you can’t respond to our point concerning “it’s just an opinion”.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 11:39
In other words, you can’t respond to our point concerning “it’s just an opinion”.

It isn’t necessary for me to do so, because we have a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 09:14
mkfreeberg: It isn’t necessary for me to do so

Only if you think your position is worth supporting.
- Zachriel | 09/14/2014 @ 09:20
M: It isn’t necessary for me to do so

Z: Only if you think your position is worth supporting.

It isn’t necessary either way. We have a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 16:25
Z: Only if you think your position is worth supporting.

Apparently not.
- Zachriel | 09/15/2014 @ 05:16
So y’all have, interestingly, one unsound conclusion within another unsound conclusion. We have a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 09/16/2014 @ 21:47
mkfreeberg: So y’all have, interestingly, one unsound conclusion within another unsound conclusion.

You say but don’t show. You claim but don’t support.

mkfreeberg: But, it’s just an opinion.

An educated opinion consistent with expert opinion, consistent with your own citations, and consistent of what we know of George Washington.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 05:08
An educated opinion…

Unfounded.

…consistent with expert opinion…

Only if y’all reserve the made-up authority to unilaterally determine what an “expert” is, which means, y’all’s idea is unsustainable.

…consistent with your own citations…

Untrue.

…and consistent of what we know of George Washington.

Demonstrated, above, to be false.

Other than those minor quibbles, a perfect reply. Perfect.
- mkfreeberg | 09/18/2014 @ 05:10
mkfreeberg: Only if y’all reserve the made-up authority to unilaterally determine what an “expert” is, which means

Professional historians and documentarians are the proper authority for matters of history and documentation.

mkfreeberg: Demonstrated, above, to be false.

Waving your hands is not a “demonstration”. We provided multiple references, including direct quotations from Washington, concerning his diction and modes of thought.
- Zachriel | 09/18/2014 @ 10:10
Waving your hands is not a “demonstration”.

Well yes, when one interested side in a disagreement is accorded (or seizes) unilateral control in determining what succeeds or fails to prove what, then, the resulting discussion can succeed or fail to prove just about anything.

But, that wasn’t “hand waving.” Y’all made the point that Washington didn’t write such-and-such a way, that the literary cadence was consistent with the Romantic Era. When I found verbiage in the Farewell Address that sustained the pattern, that defeated the argument; now, we’re just waiting to see how long it takes y’all to catch on.

So far, all y’all have demonstrated is how to go through the motions of discussion, without learning anything new. Y’all seem to be adept at not learning anything new. So…why should I be interested in y’all’s opinions about who’s-an-expert, again?
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2014 @ 04:14
mkfreeberg: Y’all made the point that Washington didn’t write such-and-such a way, that the literary cadence was consistent with the Romantic Era.

Not sure that is correct. Rather the literary cadence is foreign to Washington, while the mode of thought is foreign to his philosophy.

mkfreeberg: When I found verbiage in the Farewell Address that sustained the pattern

The excerpt of the Farewell Address you provided is not consistent with the diction or mode of thought of the purported quote.

Farewell Address: This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.

Purported quote: Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Not even close.
- Zachriel | 09/19/2014 @ 04:25
Rather the literary cadence is foreign to Washington, while the mode of thought is foreign to his philosophy.

And both those arguments have been advanced already. Both have failed.

Y’all have demonstrated there are people who are very sure Washington didn’t say it and could not have said it — the same way they were very sure the healthcare.gov web site would take off without a hitch. Y’all have also demonstrated, it seems to be the same fabric of thinking driving these two different very sure things.

I say, we leave it to the readers to figure out if that’s persuasive.
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2014 @ 04:39
mkfreeberg: And both those arguments have been advanced already. Both have failed.

So you have repeated, but the two quotes have opposite foundations, the Farewell Address sees government as a reflection of the people who make it up, the purported quote sees government as a separate entity, a monster that needs to be controlled.

As for the diction, they’re not even close.
- Zachriel | 09/20/2014 @ 06:21
…but the two quotes have opposite foundations, the Farewell Address sees government as a reflection of the people who make it up, the purported quote sees government as a separate entity…

And this is the subject of complaints in this thread, not just from myself. Y’all claim to understand what these “experts” say when they comment that this doesn’t read like something Washington would have said (they don’t qualify it themselves). Y’all claim the literary flair is wrong and that the view of government is not consistent with Washington’s.

Faced with evidence that the language flow is indeed consistent with Washington’s known writings, y’all shift the argument to the view of government, as y’all did just now. Faced with evidence that Washington might have seen government this way depending on the context, y’all do the opposite, shifting the argument back to a discussion of writing styles. Meanwhile, both arguments have been resoundingly defeated.

It’s like y’all think y’all can mold and shape reality by arguing about it. That’s probably what liberals did right before the healthcare.gov launch. We know how that went.
- mkfreeberg | 09/20/2014 @ 06:45
mkfreeberg: And this is the subject of complaints in this thread, not just from myself.

In your echo-chamber.

mkfreeberg: Y’all claim to understand what these “experts” say when they comment that this doesn’t read like something Washington would have said (they don’t qualify it themselves).

The Mount Vernon Association lists it as apocryphal, as do other sources.

mkfreeberg: Y’all claim the literary flair is wrong

The diction.

mkfreeberg: and that the view of government is not consistent with Washington’s.

That is correct. Washington was a person of the Enlightenment, while the personification in the purported quote clearly of the Romantic.

mkfreeberg: Faced with evidence that the language flow is indeed consistent with Washington’s known writings, y’all shift the argument to the view of government, as y’all did just now.

We didn’t shift anything. The purported quote is not consistent with Washington’s diction, nor with his philosophical viewpoint. We have made both points repeatedly on this thread for six months now. Why you are still confused is a mystery, but we can only support you don’t actually read to understand our position.
- Zachriel | 09/20/2014 @ 06:59
In your echo-chamber.

What’s this? I thought hand waving was not an argument.

The Mount Vernon Association lists it as apocryphal, as do other sources.

None of whom know enough to do so, credibly. Y’all are confusing “listing” with “proving.” Listing is easy. To list something, you just — list it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 05:23
mkfreeberg: Y’all are confusing “listing” with “proving.”

Not at all. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument. All the experts cited on this thread have found the quote apocryphal.

As for the evidence, the only thing you have provided is an anonymous attribution in a Christian Science journal made over a century after Washington’s death. In other words, you have no evidence of substance.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 06:05
Not at all. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument. All the experts cited on this thread have found the quote apocryphal.

Right, it is an exercise in finding “truth” by way of perceiving a consensus. We all know consensus has never been wrong about anything.

Is there some meaningful difference between this expert-consensus thinking, and cult thinking?
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 08:51
mkfreeberg: Right, it is an exercise in finding “truth” by way of perceiving a consensus.

An appeal to authority is an inductive argument.

mkfreeberg: Is there some meaningful difference between this expert-consensus thinking, and cult thinking?

Yes. The authority has to be an expert in a valid and relevant field of study, in this case historians and documentarians.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 08:54
The authority has to be an expert in a valid and relevant field of study, in this case historians and documentarians.

Cult leaders are experts in their cults. Self-proclaimed experts. Just like y’all’s experts, come to think of it.

It’s rather surprising, to those who take the time to notice, how stunningly ignorant people can be after they’re supposed to have been studying something, even across a great deal of time, to improve their “expertise” in it. And I’m getting a kick out of these anonymous busybodies on the Internet criticizing my own source for being “an anonymous attribution.”
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 09:11
mkfreeberg: Cult leaders are experts in their cults. Self-proclaimed experts.

That’s right. However, valid fields of study overlap with many other fields of study. So historical studies overlaps with sociology, anthropology, politics, economics. These other fields overlap with still other fields. This provides a robust framework of understanding with extensive crosschecking.

Are you really back to arguing about whether it is reasonable to discount the opinion of multiple doctors who say you have cancer?
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 09:19
What would we do without experts?

Anyway, y’all have succeeded in illustrating the mindset that said “Healthcare.gov is good to go!” a year ago. Unmerited confidence, unnaturally diminished curiosity, unwarranted confidence in the unfounded opinions of leadership. Now we know why it went the way it did.

Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 09:31
mkfreeberg: What would we do without experts?

Without experts, there would be no engineering, science, or technology. There would be no modern society.

mkfreeberg: But, it’s just an opinion.

We responded to this point above, which you have yet to address.

Not all opinions are of equal validity. The Earth moves is “just an opinion”. The Earth stands still is “just an opinion”. They are not equally valid just because they are both opinions. The former “opinion” is supported by a wide variety of evidence, as adduced by experts from many related fields of study.
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 10:05
Without experts, there would be no engineering, science, or technology. There would be no modern society.

So the healthcare.gov launch is an example of the technology upon which we rely in modern society?
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 13:42
mkfreeberg: So the healthcare.gov launch is an example of the technology upon which we rely in modern society?

Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain. Did you think perfection was required before technology can be useful? Did you think certainty was necessary before scientific knowledge could advance?

You didn’t respond. Do you agree that not all opinions are equally valid?
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 13:51
Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain. Did you think perfection was required before technology can be useful? Did you think certainty was necessary before scientific knowledge could advance?

So the healthcare.gov launch was a successful manifestation of the kind of results this expertise brings to us, then; it is an example of y’all’s idea of these experts knowing what they’re doing. Right?
- mkfreeberg | 09/21/2014 @ 14:04
mkfreeberg: So the healthcare.gov launch was a successful manifestation of the kind of results this expertise brings to us

It’s as if you don’t bother to read our comments before spewing forth your responses. Let’s try again.

Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain. Did you think perfection was required before technology can be useful? Did you think certainty was necessary before scientific knowledge could advance?

You didn’t respond. Do you agree that not all opinions are equally valid?
- Zachriel | 09/21/2014 @ 14:48
It’s as if you don’t bother to read our comments before spewing forth your responses. Let’s try again.

I read until I find something that doesn’t make sense, then just respond to that. Would there be some point to reading further?

Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain. Did you think perfection was required before technology can be useful? Did you think certainty was necessary before scientific knowledge could advance?

So the healthcare.gov launch was a successful manifestation of the kind of results this expertise brings to us, then; it is an example of y’all’s idea of these experts knowing what they’re doing. Right?

You didn’t respond. Do you agree that not all opinions are equally valid?

The answer would have to be a mix. Opinions about what is so, that are binary in their verity and can be right or wrong, are: right, or wrong. In that case, by “valid” do you mean free of formal fallacies? Or, do you mean an opinion that limits the possibilities to the ones y’all think should be considered, excluding all the ones y’all don’t think should be considered?

It seems y’all are pondering a list of rules for forming “valid” opinions, which as we saw with the healthcare.gov launch, don’t always mesh with reality. Reminds me of the Woody Allen quote, “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” The comment about technology not being perfect, an obvious attempt to lower the bar of expectation to retroactively make the inadequate adequate, inspires another question: What is to be done with these rules, after they are impeccably followed, to produce an answer which subsequently turns out to be the wrong one? Is anything in those rules then in need of revision?

If not, then this would be an update for Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung. Y’all seem to be unaware that when people try to figure out the best way to do their thinking, what they’re after is the answer that is correct, not just the feeling they’ve reached an answer that is correct. It’s a subtle difference but it can be an important one.

If y’all’s experts aren’t hip to this — then what does it matter what they have to say about George Washington?
- mkfreeberg | 09/22/2014 @ 00:53
Zachriel: Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain. Did you think perfection was required before technology can be useful? Did you think certainty was necessary before scientific knowledge could advance?

mkfreeberg: So the healthcare.gov launch was a successful manifestation of the kind of results this expertise brings to us, then; it is an example of y’all’s idea of these experts knowing what they’re doing. Right?

You just answered a question with a question. We understand that you avoid being direct because your position is weak.

mkfreeberg: In that case, by “valid” do you mean free of formal fallacies?

We provided an example. “The Earth moves.” “The Earth doesn’t move.”
- Zachriel | 09/22/2014 @ 05:03
You just answered a question with a question. We understand that you avoid being direct because your position is weak.

My objective was not to answer y’all’s question, since I notice my question is still unanswered. It’s a bit odd y’all are talking about weak positions, while turning this into a “who asked the question first” contest. But since y’all did, I asked first.

It seems like y’all are confusing advances in technology, with things democrats and liberals do. As we learned on October 1, 2013, there is a big difference between those two things, because there are many big differences in the styles of thought involved in engaging them.

In brief, advances in technology rely on things that actually work, which rely on facts both welcome and unwelcome. Things democrats and liberals do, rely on ideas and thoughts that make democrats and liberals happy, which often don’t coincide with reality.

We provided an example.

Y’all’s example doesn’t address the question. This particular question has to be answered before y’all’s question can be answered, since y’all’s question involves an ambiguity.
- mkfreeberg | 09/22/2014 @ 05:59
mkfreeberg: So the healthcare.gov launch is an example of the technology upon which we rely in modern society?

It is an example of how and why technology can sometimes fail. Notably, the website was fixed. Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain. Did you think perfection was required before technology can be useful? Did you think certainty was necessary before scientific knowledge could advance?

mkfreeberg: Y’all’s example doesn’t address the question.

The example eliminated formal fallacies as you had suggested. We’ll rephrase. Do you agree that not all opinions are equally sound?
- Zachriel | 09/22/2014 @ 06:09
Technology is never perfect, and science is never certain.

Y’all said that already. It doesn’t fit here because even the people who were on the inside of ObamaCare and it’s joke of a website, use the word “debacle” to describe the site’s launch and a lot of them would agree this wasn’t a situation of “perfect being the enemy of the good.”

What I’m establishing here — and it seems I’m establishing it successfully — is that liberals are so in love with ideas that entertain them, be those ideas attached to reality or not, that they wouldn’t know a “technological advance” if it ran up and kicked ’em in the nards. They, in general, are as non-committal as y’all on the question of: Is this an example of the “technological advances” the ideological Left, in America, has in mind for us? A “No” would be a confession that their demigod Obama can bungle things; a “Yes” would be a confession that when liberals claim to be helping us, that is when we need to be on guard because that’s when they’re about to hurt us.

Neither confession is acceptable in the cult-church of liberalism, so the question doesn’t get a straight answer, including out of y’all. So it’s funny y’all would say,

We understand that you avoid being direct because your position is weak.

Pure projection.

So the healthcare.gov launch is an example of the technology upon which we rely in modern society? It is an example of the “technological advances” the ideological Left, in America, has in mind for us?
- mkfreeberg | 09/22/2014 @ 18:25
mkfreeberg: It doesn’t fit here because even the people who were on the inside of ObamaCare and it’s joke of a website, use the word “debacle” to describe the site’s launch and a lot of them would agree this wasn’t a situation of “perfect being the enemy of the good.”

Yes, and spaceships blow up with people on board. If we grant that technology has many benefits, but is imperfect; then pointing to imperfections doesn’t mean technology doesn’t have many benefits.

mkfreeberg: liberals are so in love with ideas that entertain them, be those ideas attached to reality or not, that they wouldn’t know a “technological advance” if it ran up and kicked ‘em in the nards.

You chose a poor example, because the healthcare.gov website is largely functioning to provide insurance options for millions of people.
- Zachriel | 09/23/2014 @ 06:00
In any case, this doesn’t change that you cited what is probably a spurious quote, something you have been unable to acknowledge.
- Zachriel | 09/23/2014 @ 06:02
Yes, and spaceships blow up with people on board. If we grant that technology has many benefits, but is imperfect; then pointing to imperfections doesn’t mean technology doesn’t have many benefits.

I see. So the disastrous ObamaCare website launch of Oct. 1, 2013, is y’all’s idea of “many benefits”?
- mkfreeberg | 09/25/2014 @ 17:54
mkfreeberg: So the disastrous ObamaCare website launch of Oct. 1, 2013, is y’all’s idea of “many benefits”?

It was hardly “disastrous” and the website was fixed within a few weeks, and is now working to provide insurance options for millions. However, the rollout can hardly be considered a success, so you can count that as one of the imperfections of technological change.

In any case, this doesn’t change that you cited what is probably a spurious quote, something you have been unable to acknowledge.
- Zachriel | 09/26/2014 @ 03:56
It was hardly “disastrous” and the website was fixed within a few weeks, and is now working to provide insurance options for millions.

So, yes? The disaster is representative of the kind of technological advances y’all think move our society forward, and the “many benefits” of those technological advances?

As a reminder: A web site that lets you log in and create an account, was not exactly leading-edge technology in October of 2013. So, y’all are doing a pretty good job demonstrating how liberals, far from guiding us into some kind of golden age, are more responsible for our dark-ages. If the goal is to build something great and grand and new that makes life better for people, it helps a lot to be able to admit “That, there, was a fail; next time we give it a try, we don’t want it to turn out that way.” Liberals lack this. Thanks for helping to show it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 02:35
mkfreeberg: A web site that lets you log in and create an account, was not exactly leading-edge technology in October of 2013.

That wasn’t the problem, but the vast amount of data that had to be aggregated across multiple incompatible databases. The system choked.

mkfreeberg: So, y’all are doing a pretty good job demonstrating how liberals, far from guiding us into some kind of golden age, are more responsible for our dark-ages.

While the roll-out was certainly poor, the system was fixed and is currently providing insurance options for millions.

In any case, this doesn’t change that you cited what is probably a spurious quote, something you have been unable to acknowledge.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 06:18
That wasn’t the problem, but the vast amount of data that had to be aggregated across multiple incompatible databases. The system choked.

There was no “the problem.” There were, and are, many problems.
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 07:02
mkfreeberg: There was no “the problem.”

We agree. So you modify your statement which minimized the problem to “a web site that lets you log in and create an account”. Thank you.

In any case, this doesn’t change that you cited what is probably a spurious quote, something you have been unable to acknowledge.
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 07:06
Hmm. Only one of your nine have nothing to do with the technology of the website launch. Do you even read your own posts?
- Zachriel | 09/27/2014 @ 07:07
Hmm. Only one of your nine have nothing to do with the technology of the website launch. Do you even read your own posts?

Yes, all nine have to do with the experts elevating the importance of theory over the meaning of practice. This particular passage is apropos to y’alls current position, a rather stunningly accurate prediction:

I think, based on past history, the law’s defenders will put together some highly questionable evidence that this-or-that hiccup was never there, or it’s been overcome anyway — completely ignore the other eight, and brazenly call anyone who doesn’t climb on to the ObamaCare bandwagon, a racist. Therein lies the necessity of putting together such a list.

We don’t have the “racist” thing going on here, but we do have y’all trying to marginalize eight problems, and come up with a flimsy rebuttal against the remaining one. Exactly like I said. As if none of it matters.

Which would mean: This is the lefty illustration of success, we saw a year ago. With however-many problems one may identify with the debacle, the leftist position is, the benefits outweigh all the setbacks. Exactly the opposite of what the rest of the electorate believes.

So, yes? The disaster is representative of the kind of technological advances y’all think move our society forward, and the “many benefits” of those technological advances?
- mkfreeberg | 09/27/2014 @ 10:12
mkfreeberg: Yes, all nine have to do with the experts elevating the importance of theory over the meaning of practice.

You were clearly referring to healthcare.gov, not ObamaCare.

mk: A web site that lets you log in and create an account, was not exactly leading-edge technology in October of 2013.

Not sure why you can’t keep track of your own comments, but it does help explain why you can’t keep track of ours.

mkfreeberg: The disaster is representative of the kind of technological advances y’all think move our society forward, and the “many benefits” of those technological advances?

What disaster? We already agreed that the healthcare.gov rollout was flawed.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 05:20
You were clearly referring to healthcare.gov, not ObamaCare.

Oh, so y’all are taking the position that the rest of it worked any better than the web site? That would be an interesting position to take. By the way, here is my complete statement:

It seems like y’all are confusing advances in technology, with things democrats and liberals do. As we learned on October 1, 2013, there is a big difference between those two things, because there are many big differences in the styles of thought involved in engaging them.

In brief, advances in technology rely on things that actually work, which rely on facts both welcome and unwelcome. Things democrats and liberals do, rely on ideas and thoughts that make democrats and liberals happy, which often don’t coincide with reality.

That applies to all nine in the post linked.

The irony here is that, as has been noted many times before, y’all tend to try to pull these “wins” out by generating ambiguity and confusion about what’s being discussed; and because there is so much messed up with ObamaCare, due to the people in charge thinking like a bunch of lefty bureaucrats disconnected from the moving parts that come in contact with the work — the resulting bushels of faily-fail are now ammunition for y’all to work with this rhetorical tactic: Supposedly it’s now my burden to stick to the proper and consistent topic.

It doesn’t work because the real topic is the flawed planning method, not the confusion, chaos and despair that result from it. The Conquest Rule covers it: “Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.” And so liberals believe in having matters decided by authorities most distant from the work that has to be done; ObamaCare is just a good example of this.

Y’all said it y’all’selves: “That wasn’t the problem, but the vast amount of data that had to be aggregated across multiple incompatible databases. The system choked.” What sorts of bureaucrats are taken by surprise by such a thing? Distant, disconnected ones, who presume everything is going well — and intimidate their subordinates from mentioning anything that might not be going well. Libs. They work according to narratives, as y’all have shown over and over again, and consequently don’t build things people actually want, need or can use.

“Have your car take me to the airport. Mr Corleone is a man who insists on hearing bad news at once. “
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 05:43
mkfreeberg: Oh, so y’all are taking the position that the rest of it worked any better than the web site?

We hadn’t taken a position. Rather, we pointed out that you were talking about the healthcare.gov roll-out, then conflated that with ObamaCare.

In any case, this doesn’t change that you cited what is probably a spurious quote, something you have been unable to acknowledge.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 06:09
mkfreeberg: It doesn’t work because the real topic is the flawed planning method, not the confusion

Actually, we brought up a rather trivial point about the spurious George Washington attribution, which you refuse to correct.

You turned that into a discussion of how experts are sometimes wrong, which is true, and therefore you shouldn’t listen to experts, which is silly.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 06:12
We hadn’t taken a position. Rather, we pointed out that you were talking about the healthcare.gov roll-out, then conflated that with ObamaCare.

All of which shows that experts don’t always know their subject matter; in fact, one hasn’t long to wait until “expertise,” particularly the self-proclaimed kind, is used to anesthetize against healthy doubts that normal people have. Experts, very often, fail to do the kind of learning that is expected of non-experts, with the consequence that experts very often are not only mistaken, but produce unsatisfactory results.

In any case, this doesn’t change that you cited what is probably a spurious quote, something you have been unable to acknowledge.

According to experts, self-proclaimed experts, who seem very sure of themselves.

Let me know when y’all find that proof that it’s a spurious quote.

Actually, we brought up a rather trivial point about the spurious George Washington attribution, which you refuse to correct.

Let me know when y’all find that proof.

You turned that into a discussion of how experts are sometimes wrong, which is true, and therefore you shouldn’t listen to experts, which is silly.

Listen to experts, sure. Issue corrections because of expert opinion, which turns out to not be based on anything solid at all — well, let’s just agree that that’s optional. To say otherwise would be to demand universal and unconditional obeisance to the opinions of those experts…

…which would be silly.
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 11:57
mkfreeberg: All of which shows that experts don’t always know their subject matter

Absolutely. Which is why people often get second opinions, and why a consensus is stronger than the opinion of a single expert.

mkfreeberg: According to experts, self-proclaimed experts, who seem very sure of themselves.

And the lack of any reasonable support for the attribution.

mkfreeberg: Issue corrections because of expert opinion, which turns out to not be based on anything solid at all — well, let’s just agree that that’s optional.

Evidence trumps authority.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 12:06
mkfreeberg: self-proclaimed experts

That part isn’t true. Here are a few staff members:

Douglas Bradburn, PhD History, oversees the Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington at Mount Vernon.,

Mark Santangelo, the chief librarian and archivist has an ILS degree from Princeton.

Mary Thompson has an MA in history from UVa, and has 34 years experience at Mount Vernon.

Contributors to the library include D. Jason Berggren, Ph.D., Lydia Mattice Brandt, Ph.D., Matthew A. Byron, Ph.D., T. K. Byron, Ph.D., Shannon E. Duffy, Ph.D., Carol Ebel, Ph.D., William M. Etter, Ph.D., William F. Fowler, Jr., Ph.D., Michael P. Gabriel, Ph.D., Cassandra Good, Ph.D., Kevin Grimm, Ph.D., David Head, Ph.D., William P. Kladky, Ph.D., James MacDonald, Ph.D., Joseph Meyer, Ph.D., Curtis F. Morgan, Jr., Ph.D., Adam D. Shprintzen, Ph.D., Mary Stockwell, Ph.D., George Tsakiridis, Ph.D., Victoria Williams, Ph.D., Jeffrey A. Zemler, Ph.D.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 12:20
Here are a few staff members…

They all wrote that page, then? How come it has obvious typos?
- mkfreeberg | 09/28/2014 @ 14:58
mkfreeberg: They all wrote that page, then?

As the page makes clear, the staff researchs quotations for authenticity.
- Zachriel | 09/28/2014 @ 15:14
Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.

I see no reason, presented here, to issue a correction.
- mkfreeberg | 09/30/2014 @ 02:06
mkfreeberg: it’s just an opinion

An educated opinion consistent with expert opinion, consistent with your own citations, and consistent of what we know of George Washington. But sure,

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 09/30/2014 @ 05:39
An educated opinion consistent with expert opinion…

Yeah, those always turn out to be proper, correct, and very well-established.

Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2014 @ 05:07
Try to respond to the point. We know it’s hard for you, but you can do it — if you try.

mkfreeberg: it’s just an opinion.

An educated opinion consistent with expert opinion, consistent with your own citations, and consistent of what we know of George Washington. We’ve provided expert opinion supporting that the quote is apocryphal. We’ve provided examples of known quotes from George Washington and showed why they were inconsistent with the purported quote.

You’ve provided no evidence.
- Zachriel | 10/01/2014 @ 06:05
Try to respond to the point.

It’s an opinion — and that is the point.

This whole funny dialogue is really all about facts versus opinions, and this is demonstrated easily if one merely takes on the mental exercise of inserting “It is a fact that” in front of everything, to see what necessarily would have to be rescinded or re-worded. Y’all are trying like the dickens to make the case of “It is a fact that George Washington never said such a thing”…but, y’all can’t say that, and y’all know y’all can’t say that.

So y’all resort to subterfuge with these “experts,” taking the position of “It is a fact that the experts say George Washington never would have said such a thing.” But in trying to prove it, y’all have to wander off of what these “experts” actually said.

When I say, Which experts are those, y’all reply with:

Douglas Bradburn, PhD; Mark Santangelo, who has an ILS degree from Princeton; Mary Thompson, MA in history from UVa; D. Jason Berggren, Ph.D.; Lydia Mattice Brandt, Ph.D.; Matthew A. Byron, Ph.D.; T. K. Byron, Ph.D.; Shannon E. Duffy, Ph.D.; Carol Ebel, Ph.D.; William M. Etter, Ph.D.; William F. Fowler, Jr., Ph.D.; Michael P. Gabriel, Ph.D.; Cassandra Good, Ph.D.; Kevin Grimm, Ph.D.; David Head, Ph.D.; William P. Kladky, Ph.D.; James MacDonald, Ph.D.; Joseph Meyer, Ph.D.; Curtis F. Morgan, Jr., Ph.D.; Adam D. Shprintzen, Ph.D.; Mary Stockwell, Ph.D.; George Tsakiridis, Ph.D.; Victoria Williams, Ph.D.; Jeffrey A. Zemler, Ph.D.

Very impressive. But can we then say, “It is a fact that Bradburn, Santangelo, Thompson, Berggren, Brandt, Byron, et al, all insist that George Washington never said such a thing”?

No, we can’t. Y’all are trying to make it look like that is the case. But y’all have presented no facts here at all. Only opinions.

At the very best, the point y’all have managed to support here is one of: “You had better be ready to issue a correction on that Washington quote, should more evidence come in.” That’s at the very best.

Y’all haven’t succeeded in supporting the argument that the correction is due in the meantime, not even close. All y’all have done is support an opinion. There is a difference.

And since, in this case, it’s an opinion held by anonymous denizens of the Internet, it’s not worth much. Y’all have presented the case, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 10/01/2014 @ 17:12
mkfreeberg: It’s an opinion — and that is the point.

The Earth moves. The Earth stands still. It’s just an opinion.
- Zachriel | 10/02/2014 @ 05:16
The Earth moves. The Earth stands still. It’s just an opinion.

That one happens to have more to support it than “The experts say.” So there’s a difference between the two. Somewhere on the Internet there is a loose association of anonymous pundits who claim not to be able to see the difference — but, what of it?
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2014 @ 03:23
mkfreeberg: That one happens to have more to support it than “The experts say.”

You have your cause and effect backwards. The experts say so because of the support.

Most people have no idea how to show that the Earth moves, much less actually performing the experiments.
- Zachriel | 10/04/2014 @ 06:16
You have your cause and effect backwards. The experts say so because of the support.

Support which y’all have had ample opportunity to define, and it simply isn’t there.

Seems to me y’all are the ones who have cause and effect backwards. The experts went looking for ways to debunk the Washington quote, because they just didn’t like the fact that he might have said it. Experts are humans and humans have biases. Theirs was one of: We don’t like the idea that the American Revolution was a revolt against tyranny, so we shall establish a threshold of proof unlikely to be met, for any statement from any Founding Father that would be in line with this.

Now I’ll happily acknowledge there have been some leaders of revolutions, who did these little 180-degree hairpin turns and started disapproving of any opposition to the established order once they & their allies were the established order. That has actually been the norm among revolutionaries. Y’all’s experts, however, failed to figure out that Washington’s character didn’t fit the “Robespierre” profile. He didn’t believe in unlimited power for himself and his friends once the revolution was won.

The writer Garry Wills called him “a virtuoso of resignations.” He gave up power not once but twice – at the end of the revolutionary war, when he resigned his military commission and returned to Mount Vernon, and again at the end of his second term as president, when he refused entreaties to seek a third term. In doing so, he set a standard for American presidents that lasted until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose taste for power was stronger than the 150 years of precedent set by Washington.

Experts fall prey to their own biases fairly often. In these parts, and in other blogs, I’ve noticed interested commentators have tried to point this out to y’all. Maybe one day y’all will figure it out.

In the meantime, we now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 10/04/2014 @ 14:07
mkfreeberg: {Refusal to surrender power} has actually been the norm among revolutionaries.

Sure. Washington was a modern Cincinnatus.
http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/cincinnatus/

mkfreeberg: Experts fall prey to their own biases fairly often.

Sure, but you haven’t provided any evidence they have done so in this case, and you have failed to provide any support for your attribution. All you have left is to cast aspersions on the working historians and documentarians at Mount Vernon.

mkfreeberg: Theirs was one of: We don’t like the idea that the American Revolution was a revolt against tyranny

Seriously? The historians at Mount Vernon don’t recognize the causes of the American Revolution? That’s just silly.

For Lafayette, there was no better person to receive the symbol of the end of ancient tyranny than the man who fought so bravely to establish the United States.

At first glance, Lafayette might seem an unlikely supporter of George Washington.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 06:42
http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/marquis-de-lafayette/
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 06:43
Sure, but you haven’t provided any evidence they have done so in this case, and you have failed to provide any support for your attribution.

How could I? The experts said this doesn’t seem to be something Washington would have said, and beyond that they are silent. Y’all have stepped in to supply those details, but at that point y’all have to wander off-script from what the experts actually said, thus y’all are no longer relying on this “expert opinion” and are no longer appealing to authority.

Y’all say what they’re talking about was Washington’s views of government, and writing in the enlightenment style as opposed to the romantic style. When I produce an actual Washington quote that shows a style very similar to the quote in question, y’all say this proves Washington wanted a big, bloated, tyrannical government; when I produce an actual Washington quote that shows he had the same dread for unchecked power in a government that all the OTHER Founding Fathers had, y’all go down the enlightenment-versus-romantic rat hole. It is silly to speculate on whether a “mole” is consciously aware of the game of whack-a-mole he’s inducing someone to play, so the observant reader has to conclude y’all are aware of this.

But also, that the “experts” actually have no support for the statement they’ve made, unless the support exists outside of what y’all have defined — since y’all have produced exactly two arguments and they’ve both been defeated. Perhaps they meant something else. At any rate, facts: Y’all cannot write “It is a fact that Washington never said such a thing,” even though y’all clearly wish y’all could.

Thing I Know #330. A man who doesn’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion, is not to be trusted in delivering either one of those.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:37
mkfreeberg: When I produce an actual Washington quote that shows a style very similar to the quote in question …

No, the excerpt you posted from Washington’s final address did not exhibit the style or philosophical vantage of the purported quote. The quote clearly shows Washington’s Enlightenment views, including how he sees government as a reflection of its participants.

mkfreeberg: How could I?

In other words, you attribute without evidence.

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:41
No, the excerpt you posted from Washington’s final address did not exhibit the style or philosophical vantage of the purported quote.

I disagree. And notably, y’all haven’t provided support for this statement.

Hand waving is not an argument.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:46
mkfreeberg: And notably, y’all haven’t provided support for this statement.

Sure we did. First and foremost, Washington depicted government as a reflection of its citizens. That is exactly the opposite sentiment as in the purported quote, which romantically fashions government as a beast the must need be chained.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:48
First and foremost, Washington depicted government as a reflection of its citizens. That is exactly the opposite sentiment as in the purported quote, which romantically fashions government as a beast the must need be chained.

No, it isn’t the opposite sentiment. A lot of Founding Fathers believed in both of those things.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 08:55
mkfreeberg: No, it isn’t the opposite sentiment.

It’s one of the fundamental differences between the Enlightenment and the Romantic. They are not the same.
- Zachriel | 10/05/2014 @ 08:59
It’s one of the fundamental differences between the Enlightenment and the Romantic. They are not the same.

Ah, back to that again. We were discussing attitudes toward government, now y’all are leaping back to discussing styles of writing.

Liberals, such as y’all’s experts, should not try to tell the rest of us what was thought by conservatives, such as George Washington. It is the one thing about which liberals are not only ignorant, but proud of their ignorance. We now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 10/05/2014 @ 22:30
mkfreeberg: Liberals, such as y’all’s experts, should not try to tell the rest of us what was thought by conservatives, such as George Washington.

Washington was a product of the Enlightenment, which was a movement of reform from the strictures of the Middle Ages, emphasizing reason. Washington was well to the political left of King George III, though to the political right of Jefferson.

But we still come back to this. You attribute a quote to Washington without any evidence, and with substantial evidence against the attribution.
- Zachriel | 10/06/2014 @ 05:43
Washington was a product of the Enlightenment, which was a movement of reform from the strictures of the Middle Ages, emphasizing reason. Washington was well to the political left of King George III, though to the political right of Jefferson.

And it is a FACT that he didn’t say this! Oh, except it isn’t.

But we still come back to this. You attribute a quote to Washington without any evidence, and with substantial evidence against the attribution.

How frustrating that must be. Perhaps the logical thing to do at this point is what most people would do, and take it up with BrainyQuote.
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2014 @ 05:52
mkfreeberg: And it is a FACT that he didn’t say this!

We’re saying you made a positive claim, but have no evidence to support it.

mkfreeberg: and take it up with BrainyQuote.

At least now, after all this time, you’ve made an argument. So your authority is “BrainyQuote”, while we cite the Mount Vernon Association.
- Zachriel | 10/06/2014 @ 06:33
…you made a positive claim…

BrainyQuote (and many other sources) made the claim, I cited it.

We now have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.

Now…off to BrainyQuote with y’all, to lodge y’all’s complaint. Make it good!
- mkfreeberg | 10/06/2014 @ 18:14
mkfreeberg: BrainyQuote (and many other sources) made the claim, I cited it.

Sure, and we provided evidence that the quote is likely spurious.

mkfreeberg: it’s just an opinion

Sure it’s an opinion, but not all opinions have the same merit.
- Zachriel | 10/07/2014 @ 05:01
Sure, and we provided evidence that the quote is likely spurious.

Y’all keep using that word, “evidence.” I do not think it means what y’all think it means.
- mkfreeberg | 10/07/2014 @ 05:11
mkfreeberg: Y’all keep using that word, “evidence.”

evidence, facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
- Zachriel | 10/07/2014 @ 05:42
evidence, facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The “belief or proposition” is that the quote is spurious.

What y’all have presented to support it is the insistence on power of final arbitration of writing style by an anonymous group of busybodies. Plus, a poorly-proofread Internet epistle loosely associated with a collective of grad students, who from the looks of things didn’t even put that much research vigor into the question.

I’m afraid y’all’s evidence doesn’t prove too much more than, there are people among us who have access to the Internet who do not understand the implications of from antiquity, do not understand that the vast majority of what we “know” about what historical figures said, was handed down to us that way. Perhaps, since they do have access to the Internet, they can use Google until they learn this.

Meanwhile, yall go on ahead re-writing 90% of what we know of figures of the past if y’all want to, but y’all go down that road without me. We have what I would submit is a practically complete understanding of the facts, on both sides. If y’all are ever tempted to associate the quote with George Washington, I don’t think y’all should, since it’s clear y’all don’t think he said it. But, it’s just an opinion. Others can have different opinions.
- mkfreeberg | 10/07/2014 @ 17:20
mkfreeberg: The “belief or proposition” is that the quote is spurious.

You attributed it in your original post.
- Zachriel | 10/08/2014 @ 05:08
You attributed it in your original post.

From BrainyQuote. Have y’all filed a protest with them yet?
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2014 @ 03:09
mkfreeberg: From BrainyQuote. Have y’all filed a protest with them yet?

Do you think “BrainyQuote” is all that concerned with accurate scholarship?
- Zachriel | 10/10/2014 @ 05:45
Do you think “BrainyQuote” is all that concerned with accurate scholarship?

What I think, is that y’all’s dispute is with them; and, it is curious y’all do not take it there.
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2014 @ 20:26
mkfreeberg: What I think, is that y’all’s dispute is with them

Actually, we just thought we’d pop in, and let you know about the spurious attribution. However, for some reason, you don’t think it’s important whether you are quoting Washington correctly. If it’s good enough for BrainyQuote, but rejected by historians at the Mount Vernon Association, it’s good enough for you!
- Zachriel | 10/11/2014 @ 06:28
Actually, we just thought we’d pop in, and let you know about the spurious attribution. However, for some reason, you don’t think it’s important whether you are quoting Washington correctly.

Y’all’s original claim was “The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said. The quote is spurious.” After I asked y’all to qualify this, it became clear y’all can’t support the claim.

So after seven months, we’re done with the “popping in” now?
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2014 @ 03:11
mkfreeberg: After I asked y’all to qualify this, it became clear y’all can’t support the claim.

We provided the support right after the section you quoted.

Z: The quote doesn’t sound like anything Washington would have said. The quote is spurious.
http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations
- Zachriel | 10/12/2014 @ 06:52
Text behind the link:

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote, locate another individual who said this statement, or uncover a similar quote of Washington’s that was similar to this statement.

Y’all’s position:

The quote is spurious.

Y’all’s position, restated more recently:

The quote is spurious.

The factual background is uncontested and clear. If ever y’all are tempted to connect this quote to George Washington, I don’t think y’all should. But it’s okay for others to do so. There’s nothing proving he didn’t say it, and in fact, nobody’s been able to produce another name to whom the quote should be attributed.

Meanwhile, y’all have made a claim y’all cannot support.
- mkfreeberg | 10/12/2014 @ 20:37
mkfreeberg: Text behind the link {under the heading of spurious quotations}: The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote, locate another individual who said this statement, or uncover a similar quote of Washington’s that was similar to this statement.

That’s right.

mkfreeberg: Y’all’s position: The quote is spurious.

That’s correct, and the citations supports the position.
- Zachriel | 10/13/2014 @ 06:22
That’s correct, and the citations supports the position.

False. The claim, “the quote is spurious,” has not been proven by any citation here. Y’all have yet to even identify a single expert who is willing to say such a thing.
- mkfreeberg | 10/14/2014 @ 21:56
mkfreeberg: The claim, “the quote is spurious,” has not been proven by any citation here.

Claims about the world can’t be “proven” in the sense of mathematical certainty. However, they can be supported. We provided support.

mkfreeberg: Y’all have yet to even identify a single expert who is willing to say such a thing.

Actually, you did.

“Lawson Hamblin, who owns a facsimile, and Horace Peck, America’s foremost authority on quotations, informed me this paragraph is apocryphal.”
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/class-of-2014s-job-outlook/#comment-24925

We cited the Mount Vernon Association, a premier institution of historians and documentarians on matter of George Washington.
- Zachriel | 10/15/2014 @ 05:43
Y’all have not produced a single expert agreeing with y’all’s claim: “The quote is spurious.”

Apocryphal: “(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.”

Spurious: “not being what it purports to be; false or fake.”

A good example of “spurious” would be y’all’s many claims of Washington’s views of government.
- mkfreeberg | 10/17/2014 @ 05:30
Okay. So you agree the quote is apocryphal, that is, of doubtful authenticity.
- Zachriel | 10/18/2014 @ 06:18
So you agree the quote is apocryphal, that is, of doubtful authenticity.

I agree y’all found an expert* who thinks so.

——–
*“Expert” being used rather loosely in the context.
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2014 @ 09:57
mkfreeberg: I agree y’all found an expert* who thinks so.

It was your citation.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/class-of-2014s-job-outlook/#comment-24925
- Zachriel | 10/18/2014 @ 13:17
It was your citation.

I see. My citation, y’all’s position. “The quote is spurious.” I take it to mean, I can use my own citation, and within that I’ll find the support for the unsupported claim y’all have made.

Is there anything further to what y’all are trying to say? Or are y’all ready for me to render my verdict on whether or not this works?
- mkfreeberg | 10/20/2014 @ 03:57
mkfreeberg: I can use my own citation, and within that I’ll find the support for the unsupported claim y’all have made.

The attribution is apocryphal, that is, of doubtful authenticity.
- Zachriel | 10/20/2014 @ 05:39
The attribution is apocryphal, that is, of doubtful authenticity.

Y’all didn’t say doubtful. Y’all’s claim was that it is a spurious quote. Y’all have repeated this many times, and have failed to support it.
- mkfreeberg | 10/26/2014 @ 11:54
mkfreeberg: Y’all didn’t say doubtful. Y’all’s claim was that it is a spurious quote.

The attribution is apocryphal, that is, of doubtful authenticity. Seriously, that’s all you have left of your argument?

“I’m here all week, try the veal!” — George Washington.
- Zachriel | 10/26/2014 @ 12:09
The attribution is apocryphal, that is, of doubtful authenticity.

Y’all’s claim, which y’all have repeated many times, is that the quote is spurious. Y’all have yet to substantiate this, except by weak implication.

Now perhaps we are treating the claim unfairly: “The quote is spurious,” to normal people who live on Earth, means “IT IS A FACT that the quote is spurious.” Y’all being libs, it is more reasonable to infer that what y’all are trying to say is more like:

“It benefits our political objectives to promulgate the notion that the quote is spurious.”

Or

“It benefits our political objectives to promulgate the notion that Washington never would have said such a thing.” Seems y’all’s “experts” come from Planet Promulgate as well. Which would be fine, except that would mean the “expertise” they’re providing here is not expertise at all, but rather, for all practical purposes, propaganda. A hefty main course of propaganda with a side of Confirmation Bias.

Washington never would have said it. We just asked the Washington who lives in our heads, and he confirmed it!
- mkfreeberg | 10/28/2014 @ 23:02
mkfreeberg: which y’all have repeated many times, is that the quote is spurious.

Yes. We pointed to the Mount Vernon Association, experts on George Washington, which lists it as one of many a spurious quotes. For most normal people that would be considered reasonable support for the claim.

mkfreeberg: Which would be fine, except that would mean the “expertise” they’re providing here is not expertise at all, but rather, for all practical purposes, propaganda.

On the one hand we have historians and documentarians at the Mount Vernon Association, the home of George Washington. On the other hand, we have your own citation which said the attribution was apocryphal.
- Zachriel | 10/29/2014 @ 05:30
Yes. We pointed to the Mount Vernon Association, experts on George Washington, which lists it as one of many a spurious quotes. For most normal people that would be considered reasonable support for the claim.

Most normal people. Yes, I’m pretty sure Einstein said so.

On the one hand we have historians and documentarians at the Mount Vernon Association, the home of George Washington. On the other hand, we have your own citation which said the attribution was apocryphal.

Right and IT IS A FACT that the quote is spurious.

Oh no wait, y’all haven’t said that. Y’all can’t. There isn’t anything to support such a statement. A bunch of people from Planet Promulgate wish to promulgate the notion that Washington never would have said such a thing. They weren’t born until after the demise of Mary Baker Eddy, after the demise of (presumably) this “WM” person of whom y’all didn’t know anything until I pointed the initials out to y’all, after the demise of George Washington. From their ambitions to promulgate this notion, we are to form a default presumption around the idea that Washington never said it, until evidence arrives to persuade otherwise.

That is silly, because if we were to practice such a doctrine consistently, we would have to scrub history of most of the statements Socrates made; nobody says he said it, except Plato. And who the heck was he? Wasn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal. Probably sucked at driving a stick shift.
- mkfreeberg | 10/31/2014 @ 02:06
mkfreeberg: A bunch of people from Planet Promulgate wish to promulgate the notion that Washington never would have said such a thing.

Experts say it is very unlikely Washington did say it, and you’ve provided no evidence that he did.
- Zachriel | 10/31/2014 @ 05:25
And y’all have provided no evidence to support y’all’s claim: “The quote is spurious.”

Indeed, “disputed” is the better & more accurate categorization to make here. The evidence says so, and the supposed “expert opinion” does not directly contradict this.

So, have fun disputing. Let me know when y’all find more evidence.
- mkfreeberg | 11/13/2014 @ 14:30
mkfreeberg: Indeed, “disputed” is the better & more accurate categorization to make here.

Your citation says “apocryphal”.

mkfreeberg: Let me know when y’all find more evidence.

Let us know when you find reasonable support for the attribution.
- Zachriel | 11/13/2014 @ 16:22
Your citation says “apocryphal”.

And the evidence supports “disputed.” Nothing further.

Y’all’s claim, still unsupported, is “spurious.” The claim fails. Moving on.
- mkfreeberg | 11/15/2014 @ 18:53
mkfreeberg: And the evidence supports “disputed.”

The Mount Vernon Association says “spurious”. Your citation says “apocryphal” meaning of doubtful authenticity. Yet, you continue to make the attribution.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 06:39
The Mount Vernon Association says “spurious”.

No, y’all need to go back and read it again. They didn’t say that and, more importantly, they don’t have the evidence to support that.

What the evidence supports is “disputed.” Nothing more.

Moving on.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 08:05
mkfreeberg: No, y’all need to go back and read it again.

Yeah. The attribution is on their spurious quotations page.
http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

mkfreeberg: more importantly, they don’t have the evidence to support that.

You provided that with your citation, which indicates that the earliest attribution is by an anonymous “W.M” in a Christian Science journal a century after Washington died, says the attribution is apocryphal. Yet, you continue to attribute it.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 08:27
Yes, I understand endless arguments can be made about anything & everything.

The claim y’all made was that the quote is spurious. The evidence does not support this. Moving on.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 11:12
mkfreeberg: The claim y’all made was that the quote is spurious.

Yes, and we provided expert opinion to that effect. You did too!
http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 11:31
Yes, I understand endless arguments can be made about anything & everything.

The claim y’all made was that the quote is spurious. The evidence does not support this. Moving on.
- mkfreeberg | 11/16/2014 @ 14:14
mkfreeberg: The claim y’all made was that the quote is spurious.

That’s correct. We not only provided an expert opinion, but your own citation indicates the attribution is apocryphal, and the only evidence to the contrary is an anonymous citation from “W.M.” in a Christian Science journal a century after Washington died. Yet you continue to attribute the statement to Washington.
- Zachriel | 11/16/2014 @ 14:18
…and the only evidence to the contrary is an anonymous citation from “W.M.” in a Christian Science journal a century after Washington died.

A “W.M.” about whom y’all knew absolutely nothing until I pointed him or her out to y’all; when the claim y’all seek to make, is that this person is the one who fabricated the quote.

I understand endless arguments can be made about anything & everything. But the claim y’all made was that the quote is spurious. Y’all’s expert opinion does not provide any support for this, the strongest it says is “likely spurious” and that’s just by the Occupy Wall Street intern charged with the responsibility of writing the page, probably self-tasked. The best that the evidence supports is what the Wikiquote source concludes, that it is “disputed.” The evidence does not support y’all’s claim. Moving on.
- mkfreeberg | 11/17/2014 @ 05:39
mkfreeberg: A “W.M.” about whom y’all knew absolutely nothing until I pointed him or her out to y’all

We were aware of the anonymous attribution from a century after Washington’s death. Our citation lists it as spurious. Your own citation lists it as apocryphal.

Yet for some reason you continue to attribute it to Washington.
- Zachriel | 11/17/2014 @ 06:19
We were aware of the anonymous attribution from a century after Washington’s death.

Y’all had taken the position that the quote was deliberately fabricated, and had no idea who y’all were slandering. That’s the consequence of relying too much on an externalized reasoning process.

Yet for some reason you continue to attribute it to Washington.

To be more precise about it, I’ve taken the position that y’all haven’t supported y’all’s claim: “The quote is spurious.” The evidence says the quote is: disputed. Nothing more than that.

Y’all’s experts — some of them, an unknown quantity of them, perhaps only one of them, and we don’t know how this person considers himself or herself to be an “expert” — put forward the notion that it is “likely spurious.” Which falls short of the claim y’all have made, thus fails to support it.

Also, this goes beyond the evidence. When experts provide opinions that go beyond the evidence, such opinions lose some of the benefit of expertise. Assuming it was ever there.

Y’all also didn’t take the important first step of making sure there were no liberals involved in this expertise. Liberal experts, as Paul Krugman has reminded us over and over again, are liberals first experts second. Also, it is rather stunning what a low bar they impose on themselves before proclaiming themselves to be experts. A good rush of adrenaline behind the desire for the “official” opinion to come out a certain way, in many cases, is enough. And there certainly is a desire here to portray a fictitious sort of George Washington, a big-bloated-government-loving version of Washington.

At any rate, y’all’s claim is unsupported. It fails. Moving on.
- mkfreeberg | 11/18/2014 @ 05:10
mkfreeberg: Y’all had taken the position that the quote was deliberately fabricated, and had no idea who y’all were slandering.

We never took that position, and corrected you previously on this. However, it doesn’t represent reasonable support.

mkfreeberg: The evidence says the quote is: disputed.

We have provided evidence that the quote is spurious. YOU have provided evidence the quote is apocryphal. There’s not much to dispute when there’s no significant evidence to support the attribution.
- Zachriel | 11/18/2014 @ 06:27
[…] not to acknowledge it just because they can’t comprehend uncertainty, which ends up being a very silly way to go about studying […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/05/2015 @ 17:30
M: Y’all had taken the position that the quote was deliberately fabricated, and had no idea who y’all were slandering.

Z: We never took that position, and corrected you previously on this. However, it doesn’t represent reasonable support.

I think I see why y’all are confused about this. A statement being either true or false, is evidently outside y’all’s understanding. This “WM” person made a written statement that our first President said this thing; either it’s true, or it isn’t true. And y’all most certainly have taken the position that this isn’t true, many times, which leaves only one alternative. Maybe y’all need to go mull that one over before commenting further.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2015 @ 00:01
mkfreeberg: A statement being either true or false, is evidently outside y’all’s understanding.

Being false doesn’t mean it was purposefully fabricated. It could be misremembered, a tale told and retold.

The statement is almost certainly apocryphal.

* It does not match Washington’s diction.
* It reads like something from the Romantic, while everything we know about Washington is that he was of the Enlightenment.
* Per the quotes you yourself provided, Washington saw government as a reflection of its citizens, not as a Frankenstein monster.
* There is no contemporary support. Only an anonymous quote over a century after Washington’s death.
* Experts consider the quote apocryphal.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2015 @ 06:54
Being false doesn’t mean it was purposefully fabricated. It could be misremembered, a tale told and retold.

You should take the time to read up on how process of elimination works.

WM told the truth and was correct; WM deliberately fabricated; WM was mistaken. If this person was mistaken, there must have been a prior source available to deceive him, which means y’all’s “experts” are opining about a subject on which their research is not complete. This would essentially defrock them of the status that goes with being an expert, demoting them to just opinionated-people.

Or it would, if y’all could say who they were.

So if the trail really does end at this WM person, which certainly does seem to be the position y’all have taken several times up above, that leaves us with only the first two. WM told the truth, or WM made it up on the spot. Question is, if y’all didn’t even know anything about this WM person, where is this “evidence” that he or she made it up on the spot? Contrary to this claim y’all have made repeatedly, y’all haven’t presented any.
- mkfreeberg | 01/12/2015 @ 07:57
mkfreeberg: WM told the truth

WM had no way to know the fact of the matter as the published quote was a century after Washington’s death.

Washington was heavily documented in his own time. There is nothing to support the quote, and it is contrary to anything else Washington wrote or said. The quote is apocryphal.
- Zachriel | 01/12/2015 @ 08:10
[…] is trying to achieve. Otherwise, what’s the point of a book like this? Unlike, say, here (where “you can’t prove Washington said that!” is just a tic of troll OCD), there […]
- “Geek Fatigue” | Rotten Chestnuts | 05/05/2015 @ 08:46
[…] the quippiness of Zhou’s quip may have been debunked. Quick, someone get the experts of the Mount Vernon Association of Experts on the Expertise of the Mount Vernon Association’s […]
- Organizing Myths | Rotten Chestnuts | 11/23/2016 @ 07:57
[…] not “specious,” the quippiness of Zhou’s quip may have been debunked. Quick, someone get the experts of the Mount Vernon Association of Experts on the Expertise of the Mount Vernon Association’s […]
- What’s a government for | IowaDawg Musings & More | 11/23/2016 @ 09:09
[…] quipped to Stowe, “So you’re the little lady who started this war.” Probably apocryphal — get the Mount Vernon Association of Experts on it! — but true for all […]
- Yes, But Can You Explain WHY? | Rotten Chestnuts | 04/11/2017 @ 04:48
[…] so much what they didn’t know, but that what they did know wasn’t so, as various folks apocryphally said. After that, it was just plain ignorance. Both of those things are correctable, should one […]
- Cognitive Killswitch | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/28/2018 @ 10:43
[…] lady who started this war,” he was supposed to have quipped to Harriet Beecher Stowe. The Mount Vernon Association of Experts has yet to weigh in, but it’s true in spirit if not in fact. Think about it for a sec: […]
- It’s Inevitable? | Rotten Chestnuts | 11/12/2019 @ 11:24

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Burning Her Last Bridge with ObamaSaturday, March 15th, 2014

Burning Her Last Bridge with Obama
Saturday, March 15th, 2014