Herbert, I am going to take on the whole of your "apology" by making a few pertinant points. You assert that no use of Madison's statement can be believed because of the fact that one event which can't be "proven" thereby making the whole of his testimony unfit because it is the word of a "proven liar". You say the same about the newspaper reporter Callendar who was paid by Jefferson to publish lies about the incumbernt president to help secure Jefferson's election. When Callandar point his pen at Jefferson, we are supposed to ignore all that he says because he is a "proven liar". Yet, we are asked to take all Jefferson statement at face value because he was an honorable man. Yet, in some matters, Jefferson is also a "proven liar", such as telling his daughters that Walker had tried to cheat him, which was a lie to cover up the fact that Walker had learned of Jefferson attempt to cuckhold him and broke off social relations. So, if we follow Herbert's lead in dismissing everything said by a "proven liar", we must dismiss everything Jefferson said as a possible lie. We also know that when he answered Callandar's charges, he lied in saying that he had "ONCE" offered his love to a handsome woman when he was "YOUNG AND SINGLE", but the facts from the Walker records indicate that he harassed the "handsome woman" for ten years and after he was married, and one or more times, in the presence of his wife. Now, Herbert says we must seek the TRUTH in history, but he disallows anything that could be called "revisionist". How can we seek the truth and yet not apply that truth in revisions of how we understand history? Anne Anne Pemberton [log in to unmask] http://www.erols.com/apembert http://www.educationalsynthesis.org ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html