VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kevin Hardwick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:12:54 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
Mr. Dixon--

I have endeavored to conduct myself in this conversation with courtesy to
you and to others in the conversation.  You write: "your "prosecutors" need
more than Gordon-Reed's book . . ."  I would ask you once again to treat me
and others here with civility.  The men to whom I referred most certainly
do exist, the conversation to which I reffered most certainly did happen, I
am not lying, and I resent your implication that I am doing so here.  I
will not be responding to any further posts from you which impugn my
integrity.

That said, in as much as I have taken the time to write this much, I will
correct one further error in your most recent post.  Regarding your
assertion below:

> And as I responded privately, "I know an expert, blah, blah.." is not an
> analysis or even an argument.

Of course it is.  I am not an expert in contemporary legal practice, and
the men to whom I am referring are.  Their expert judgement is thus a
perfectly reasonable warrant for the claim I have advanced.  In rhetoric,
the technique is known as "appeal to authority," and it is perfectly
legitimate.

You may of course wish to dispute their expert judgement, as I report it
here.  That too is reasonable, provided you address the arguement in
question.  The claim that a good many contemporary legal cases are won on
the basis of circumstantial evidence weaker than that provided by
Gordon-Reed (and others) does not strike me as especially controversial.
Note that my claim here does not amount to the claim "Gordon-Reed's
argument is true," or even "Gordon-Reed's argument is legally sound."  My
point is about practice--*in practice* it is good enough to win a case.
That is the judgement of the three legal professionals with whom I
conversed on the subject, and nothing you have said here addressed that.
You yourself likened Gordon-Reed's analysis to a "legal brief," and if so,
by the practical standards of legal briefs, you must surely recognize that
it is an effective one.

Kevin



--
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of History, MSC 2001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg VA 22807
Phone:  540/568-6306
Email:  [log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US