Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Over at American Creation, David Barton actually showed up to dispute Chris Rodda's criticisms of his claims regarding Thomas Jefferson and a couple of issues he raised on the Glenn Beck show. And I think this exchange gives a perfect illustration of the difference between his approach and Rodda's and why hers is so much better.
On the Glenn Beck show, they made a big deal of showing a document with Jefferson's signature that was dated "in the year of our lord Christ." But this is highly misleading, for the reasons that Rodda explains in the comments on that post:
First, let's start with the fact that the document isn't even a letter. It's part of a ships' papers.These documents, which every ship leaving the United States had to carry, were a fill-in-the-blanks form with columns translated into several languages, and were printed in quantity. Each new president signed a big stack of these forms, leaving all the other information blank, and then the blank signed forms were sent to the officials at all the ports, where they were filled out as needed. So, Jefferson did not personally write the date "in the year of our lord Christ." He just signed a bunch of blank ships' papers that someone had dated that way.
Mr. Barton claims in his description of this form on his website that "this is the explicitly Christian language that President Thomas Jefferson chose to use in official public presidential documents," and on the Glenn Beck show that "Jefferson added in the year of our lord Christ." This is completely untrue. (I'm being nice and not using the word "lie.")
Jefferson absolutely did not choose the language on this form. It's exactly the same language as the ships' papers form signed by Adams, the president right before him, and Madison, the president right after him. (I have images of the same form as it was printed during the Adams and Madison administrations if anyone doubts this.) The only difference is that the printer changed the name of the president, which appears at the top of the form, to whoever the current president was. Obviously, anyone who knows anything about Jefferson would know that he wouldn't have wasted taxpayer money by demanding that the forms be reprinted because of the way the date was written.
This is the kind of detailed research that Chris Rodda does and the kind of detailed research David Barton avoids -- because it generally debunks the claim he wants that evidence to make, whether it actually does or not.
The other issue of contention is the Aitkens Bible. Rodda has now made available the entire chapter from her book that addresses that issue in all the same kind of detail and care for accuracy.
Now contrast that with Barton's contribution. Rather than disputing any of these very specific and detailed objections, he does what he always does - falls back on the footnotes:
What I don't understand is why you continue to insist that my research is unsubstantiated when I provide an endless list of footnotes to explain and defend my positions.
Barton and his defenders talk about his footnotes ad nauseum -- "his book contained 6000 footnotes!" -- as though the sheer number of footnotes is evidence of something. How many footnotes one has is utterly irrelevant if one is distorting or cherry picking the information found in those footnotes.
Then he equivocates on his own claim and knocks down a straw man:
I don't presume to think that Mr. Jefferson was a Christian. But I do think it is abundantly clear that he was not an atheist as many history revisionists claim.
But he certainly does imply that Jefferson was a Christian because of such things. If he was merely trying to show that Jefferson was not an atheist, he certainly does not need to reach for obscure shipping records that Jefferson signed as a matter of routine; he could find proof that Jefferson was not an atheist from dozens and dozens of letters he wrote, not to mention from well known public documents like his Notes on Virginia. But those references would have been to Jefferson's God, not to the Biblical Christian God (because in many of those letters, he clearly distinguishes between them and ridicules many of the Biblical claims about God).
And this is mostly a straw man anyway. Other than Christopher Hitchens, who are those "history revisionists" who claim Jefferson was an atheist? Hitches tried in his book to claim that it "could be argued" that Jefferson was some sort of secret closet atheist, a claim that I blasted with both barrels a few years ago. But even Hitchens, though he is absolutely wrong on the matter, is more careful than to claim that Jefferson actually was an atheist.
Other than him, I've not heard anyone else make that claim. I hear it claimed all the time, by professional historians and others, that Jefferson was a deist. I think that's also untrue, but much closer than claiming he was either an atheist or a Christian (his thinking was a mixture of deism, rationalism and extremely liberal Christian thinking that Gregg Frazer best describes as "theistic rationalism").
I think this exchange makes it abundantly clear which one, Barton or Rodda, has serious credibility and which one does not. Rodda offers clear, detailed, thoroughly researched and substantive arguments; Barton offers irrelevancies and red herrings.
Politics
Comments
Sadly Texas is using the wrong one in their struggle to change history and teach lies to children.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 22, 2010 9:44 AM
But, Ed: having 6000 footnotes is definitely better! It makes it impossible for someone to actually check them all!
Posted by: psweet | March 22, 2010 9:45 AM
Here you've left out Barton's most important and cherished tactic, which is, and always has been, bearing false witness. He's a lying sack of shit, that's all he is, all he ever has been, all he ever will be. And he can't bring himself to see anything wrong with his own dishonesty, because his cult's dogma teaches that It's Not Really Lying As Long As You're Lying For Jesus™!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 22, 2010 9:47 AM
What? Cherry picking random bits of information is not the best way to do history? Who'd have thought that?
I see this as an extension of authoritarianism. What matters is the example of a single authority. If Jefferson uttered some seemingly Christan sounding words, then this country was founded as a Christian republic. Considering the broad body of evidence, putting those utterances in context, requires thinking about society as a whole. To do that, you have to acknowledge that society as whole matters, not just what one leader or expert does.
This is the same kind of thinking that leads people to argue global warming is fake because Al Gore has a big electricity bill or one scientist said something in an e-mail that sounds a bit dodgy.
Posted by: Theron | March 22, 2010 9:56 AM
and they don't like the word 'lies' over there. What a sucky place they have; you should stay away from them Ed
Posted by: zomg | March 22, 2010 10:01 AM
What the heck is the "Aitkens Bible?" A Bible without bread? I guess "transsubstantiation" wouldn't be much of an issue...
Oh wait, that's "Atkins." Sorry...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 22, 2010 10:02 AM
I think the best example of how far David Barton will go to lie about the founders and how effective Chris Rodda has been at revealing such is her fisking of a presentation Barton gave at a church. Ms. Rodda produced a YouTube video of Mr. Barton's presentation and her fiskikng.
Mr. Barton used a primary source document to argue that John Adams believed in a Holy Spirit in a manner consistent with orthodox Christianity. However revealing the entire text of the document showed that the subject passages was Mr. Adams doing a Colbert-like parody of orthodox Christians' beliefs in this regard; Adams instead revealed later in the document he believed no such thing and disparaged that position later in the text. Given that Mr. Barton owns this primary source document he has no valid excuse for purposefully misleading this audience. I don't have an easily accessible link to that fisking though I bet Ms. Rodda can easily supply one.
Ms. Rodda's book also does a great job of inferring how easy it is to spread Barton-like falsehoods and the hard work it takes to clean-up the mess afterwards.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 10:08 AM
How many more times does this sort of thing need to happen before Mr. Barton starts being referred to as “disgraced and discredited, self-proclaimed historian, David Barton,” by the media? Come on Ed, you’re media. Get the ball rolling.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 22, 2010 10:30 AM
I was just thinking about Chris Rodda this weekend because I was invited to a talk about separation of church and state by Daniel Dreisbach.
It was a lot better than I expected. He actually supports separation of church and state, but he's either blinded by his faith and politics or he's playing dumb on a few key points, and that enables those who would destroy separation.
Posted by: FishyFred | March 22, 2010 10:39 AM
Michael Heath @ 7
The links to my video are now on the homepage of my website -- www.liarsforjesus.com
I had to split the video into 9 parts because of the 10 minute length limit on YouTube, so I put the actual video of the first part on my website, with the links to the other 8 parts right below it.
One of the parts addresses the strawman that Ed brought up about "secularists" claiming that the founders were atheists because Barton makes this strawman an integral part of his presentation. I don't remember which part of my video that's in, but it's in there somewhere.
I think the part about the Adams letter lie that you brought up is near the beginning, either part 1 or part 2, or maybe starting in one part and continuing in the next.
(I hope people will watch my videos, even though my book only has about 300 footnotes.)
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 22, 2010 10:46 AM
I completely regret the entirety of my time spent there that was not related to Chris Rodda. So much religious navel gazing..
Still, I kinda worry. If Chris Rodda has a day job, she's probably not going to have the time to rebut Barton entirely, on her own. That many BS footnotes take time to sift through.
Posted by: Rutee | March 22, 2010 10:48 AM
FishyFred @ 9
I think that's a very accurate assessment of Dreisbach. I debunked stuff from Dreisbach's book in four different chapters of my book, but people still have a hard time accepting that he's spreading some of the Christian nationalist lies because, unlike Barton, he's a real historian.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 22, 2010 10:50 AM
Rutee @ 11
My day job is Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and it does take time away from me being able to work on fighting people like Barton, but my boss, (Mikey Weinstein), is as disgusted by Barton as I am, so, whenever possible, he does allow me to work on history stuff when I tell him I need time to do that. All I have to do is remind him that if it hadn't been for Barton, I wouldn't have ended up working for him. It was actually the discovery of a Barton essay about the "myth of separation" in the Junior ROTC core curriculum American history textbook, and an article I wrote about that, that led to me being introduced to Mikey. As long as I need to have a day job, I consider myself lucky to have a day job fighting the religious right, even if it's on a different front.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 22, 2010 11:00 AM
"How many more times does this sort of thing need to happen before Mr. Barton starts being referred to as “disgraced and discredited, self-proclaimed historian, David Barton,” by the media? Come on Ed, you’re media. Get the ball rolling."
I'm going to have to break down and give Ed props here. American Creation appears to be a kind of American Christian Roots love child of the libertarian Positive Liberty, where Ed and James Hanley contribute.
There is a whole lotta Barton love vibes coming out of the American Creation comments section- in fact I would have to say that to this reader, at least, Chris Rodda received a noticeably chilly reception compared to Barton.
So, props to Ed for being consistently outspoken and plainspoken about Barton and his agenda.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 22, 2010 11:09 AM
The Aitkens Bible claim takes quite a bit of imagination to believe. When the Continental Congress received the message of the British surrender, they had to pass the hat to pay the messenger because they didn't have any funds. Much worse, the reason the winter camp at Valley Forge was so grim was that they literally didn't have the funds to buy blankets, shoes, and coats for the soldiers.
But, sure, Bibles are so important that they skimped on those things to buy Bibles instead.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 22, 2010 11:37 AM
The idea that writing "in the year of our lord" -- a mere dating formality (nothing more than A.D. spelled out in English) -- would be taken as evidence of a person's religiosity is the kind of thing I never would have believed if I didn't see it.
Whether Jefferson personally wrote it or not is largely beside the point. If someone is desperate enough to use that as evidence that Jefferson was a Christian, then we can safely assume that there's no good evidence where it would actually matter, in his many missives where he actually expresses an opinion.
And never mind the irrelevancy of the broader argument to begin with.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 22, 2010 12:06 PM
Ginger,
At AC we try to be "balanced." We have a number of folks sympathetic to religious conservatism who post and comment there. AND we have done a lot of David Barton bashing. So when he shoes up with a polite comment, folks are trying to be nice to him.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | March 22, 2010 12:09 PM
Th- there are people who enjoy their jobs!? Wha- WHAT!? That goes against everything I've ever been told was possible and that I'm allowed to expect out of life. I need a freaking drink, to make sure I don't remember that bit.
Posted by: Rutee | March 22, 2010 12:16 PM
Ya never know. There's that famous incident at the Battle of Springfield where the American soldiers tore the pages from an armload of hymnals then they ran out of paper wadding. It would be quite a step up in sacrilege to use a Bible that way, but it never hurts to have a backup plan.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 22, 2010 12:27 PM
Chris Rodda at 10 said:
If there is one thing I learned from the movie 300* it's that it doesn't matter how many footnotes you bring but how many soldiers. I think you brought more soldiers.
*I sure wasn't going to learn any real history from it so I had to learn something.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | March 22, 2010 12:31 PM
Gingerbaker @14:
Um, exactly what are you suggesting about my relationship with Ed? For the record, I'm not only married, but I've never even met the guy!
But more seriously, had you done your homework you'd not make such a silly comment. Not only do you sadly misunderstand AC, whose contributors include non-Christians, but there is no relationship between it and PL except that one contributor also posts at PL (Shock and Awe, One Man Posts on Two Blogs! Film at Eleven!). But, hey, bangup job implying guilt by association--you're ready to join the Texas BOE.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 22, 2010 12:43 PM
I have to come to the defense of AC here. I know there are some people there who don't treat me too well, and I don't always agree with all of what's posted, but overall I do like the blog, and have read quite a few very interesting posts there. That said, I have to admit that I was a bit insulted by the comment from one of the bloggers there who said that I should be considered "irrelevant" because the bloggers there don't cite Barton as a source. Obviously, that blogger was under the misconception that all I do is rebut Barton, and that's the only reason I write about history, a misconception I tried to dispel in my reply to that comment. But, that same blogger also posted another comment characterizing Barton as someone whose work is largely accurate and just makes an honest mistake once in a while. I realized at that point that I was fighting a losing battle there.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 22, 2010 12:57 PM
Ed, I'm not sure if Hitchens actually makes the argument that Jefferson was a closet atheist. I think Hitch intended to be provocative and shock some people who may have taken it for granted that Jefferson would be a Christian.
I'm reading Hitchens' biography of Jefferson now and it seems quite clear that he (Jefferson) is somewhere between a deist and unitarian.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 22, 2010 1:24 PM
Schmeer-
I addressed the specifics of what Hitchens wrote in this post:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/hitchens_jefferson_and_atheism.php
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 22, 2010 1:33 PM
Chris,
The blogger who called you "irrelevant," is prone to making a fool of himself. His brief foray in posting here at Dispatches went none too well and sent him slinking away wrapped in self pity.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 22, 2010 1:45 PM
"But more seriously, had you done your homework you'd not make such a silly comment. Not only do you sadly misunderstand AC, whose contributors include non-Christians, but there is no relationship between it and PL except that one contributor also posts at PL (Shock and Awe, One Man Posts on Two Blogs! Film at Eleven!). But, hey, bangup job implying guilt by association--you're ready to join the Texas BOE. "
Guilt by association? What are you feeling guilty about?!
Now, I'm no expert on AC, and I don't care if non Christians post there, but could it not fairly be described as an American Christian origins blog with a libertarian bent? . I realize that the blog's interest is in understanding the religious identifications of the Founding Father's (which includes plenty of non Canonical approaches, but by numerical necessity alone is dominated by orthodoxy), and that's great, but there definitely seems to be a Christian-Libertarian axis going on. The site has a permanent link list of America's founding (Christian) Churches!
I'm not going to go into the whole stealth libertarian cabal that you and your fellow conspirators have hatched to take over the intertubes - I make it a policy not to get involved in FBI investigations. ;D
And yes! I am definitely ready to join the Texas BOE, they need some help - do you have an in?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 22, 2010 1:49 PM
Jon Rowe @ #17:
I am not able to access the entry in question at the moment, but on what grounds does Barton, a known, shameless, unrepentant fraud, deserve any niceness or "balance" at all? It doesn't matter how politely he words his comments, it is NOT polite to lie, and his entire career is built on falsehoods. What he deserves is to be disgraced and denounced as a fraud. What your readers deserve is the TRUTH, which Barton and his ilk flee in abject terror from. Treating outright lies as equal to facts is not "balance". It is fraud. The things Barton says are not true. You know this. He knows this. Because he continues spreading these falsehoods, he is not a historian, or a commentator, he is simply a liar. And that is what he should be called.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 22, 2010 1:50 PM
I'm not sure about guilt by association. Reading the comments for articles (Not related to the one linked here) just yielded way too much pointless jabber about religion, and I got bored. While there are a great many things that I don't mind, boredom is not one of them.
@27: I think by balanced, he more meant that as long he's polite, they will be. Or I'm reading too much into the quotation marks.
Posted by: Rutee | March 22, 2010 2:06 PM
James Hanley @ 25
Thanks for posting that. The only place I know of that blogger from is AC. I didn't realize, or just don't remember, him coming here. There are other bloggers at AC who I sometimes disagree with, but he's the only one who really denigrates me, or so adamantly defends Barton.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 22, 2010 2:11 PM
AC is an experiment. The entire point is to have no ideological point of view. Or so many competing ones that they all cancel one another out.
So we have Mormons, evangelicals, Roman Catholics, atheists, Masons and Unitarian Universalists as frontpage posters and commenters.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | March 22, 2010 2:47 PM
Gingerbaker:
The American Creation contributor who called Rodda irrelevant is conservative, rather than libertarian, so I don't think your description is entirely fair. The others, besides Jon Rowe, I can't speak for. But even if it were libertarian, that mere association wouldn't make it a PL love child.
I have no idea what a comment like this is supposed to mean. On a blog devoted to religious history, such a link is not necessarily evidence of either libertarianism or devout Christianity, but, perhaps, merely about history.Posted by: James Hanley | March 22, 2010 3:13 PM
In AC's defense it's a great idea and I think the quality of both its blog posts and comments have measurably improved since it started. It helps having Jon Rowe setting a standard in terms of letting well-framed writings from our founding be our revelation without getting all wrapped up in winning modern-day political arguments.
I'm rooting for the success in spite of my rarely commenting there myself given I at least skim if not read all the blog posts.
I also like the idea of a check against a liberal-oriented echo chamber that can lead to either distorted analyses or getting too wrapped up in how the enemy is polluting the public square at the expense of enhancing one's own understanding of origins. The challenge in that regard is getting non-liberals to also leave their ideologies at the door and we know that can be an even bigger challenge for some of them than it is for some of us. It's refreshing to ignore the Christianists in many/most? of their posts which they normally do so I think that's a feature, not a bug. Science wouldn't get much done if it focused exclusively on rebutting creationists so I like the fact they merely season their stew with the Christianist garbage and focus more on seeking truth of our secular/religious origins relevant to the American public square.
I do think they need to be a little less tolerant of those that have nothing to add to the conversation if their objective is to better educate themselves, which I think it is. I.e., sometimes they bend over backward accommodating unworthy arguments where I prefer Ed's position, merely ignoring those or outright ridiculing them. Having said that the two most disruptive commenters they've had left or were booted months ago. One of their best additions was an occasional post or comment by Dr. Gregg Frazer, and I wonder if he begged off because he got into some back and forths I found were a waste of his time and AC's readers. Dr. Frazer was the guy who coined the label theistic rationalist.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 22, 2010 3:41 PM
The first three of these church links brought me to their mission and member recruitment pages, so I didn't bother with the rest. Not exactly historical research material, and why this is a permanent link resource on the blog's front page is pretty strange if the blog is of a purely historical bent.
I don't know why you are so offended by the "libertarian lovechild" remark. It was meant to highlight the fact that Ed was in front of the curve as far as his libertarian blogging brethren in regard to Barton, and to be a little funny.
You are turning my backhanded compliment for Ed into a backhanded slap in my face. And you hit like a girl, so stop it, OK?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 22, 2010 3:55 PM
You don't understand the value of 6000 footnotes? Allow me to elucidate the issue; 6000 = the TRUE age of the Earth (paleolithic artifacts, cunningly worked as they may be, were obviously planted by the devil). Sharing in quantity, these footnotes also share in nature with the 6000 TRUE years of the Earth, making his statements about them equally TRUE; ipso facto, ergo, e.g. ect. ect. ect.
Hmm, maybe I should have thrown a few homophobic and obscene remarks in there just to get the tone right :/
Posted by: Julian | March 22, 2010 5:38 PM
Rueland: Never under-estimate the will of the ideologically motivated to do violence to the truth.
Posted by: Julian | March 22, 2010 5:45 PM
OK, I get that. I don't think much of that, either.
Aww, gee, you're really cute when you try to be mean. I'd say it was more backhand than compliment. And given that neither Ed nor I are contributors to AC, while Jon Rowe is, you rather picked the wrong people's names to attach to it.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 22, 2010 5:46 PM
So, is that why my blog is getting new hits on a post I did a year or so ago titled "Misquoting Jefferson?"
Was Jefferson atheist? No, probably not by any modern definition. However, Dumas Malone, the author of the 6-volume, Pulitzer-winning biography, wrote that Hamilton's minions accused Jefferson of being atheist in the election of 1800, and that Jefferson thought it beneath his dignity, unnecessary, and giving too much credit to the charges, to say anything about them. By the election, about half of Americans were convinced Jefferson was atheist. They voted for him anyway.
Among other things, many Americans were somewhat frightened of the abuses of the First Amendment by the Adams administration. They thought their religious freedom in better hands with an atheist like Jefferson, than with a believer like Adams.
So what was Barton's point, again?
Rodda's got the best stuff. Isn't there a Pulitzer category for just sheer truth?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 22, 2010 5:47 PM
I think that would make a great civics lesson. Make up two columns: What the Founding Fathers said about their own religious beliefs, and what they said about each other's religious beliefs.
Posted by: DaveL | March 22, 2010 6:05 PM
Re Ed Darrell @ #37
I'm not sure that it would be correct to characterize John Adams as a believer (or at least a believing Christian). I seem to recall that in their post presidency correspondence, Adams and Jefferson pretty much agreed on their religious views.
Posted by: SLC | March 22, 2010 6:18 PM
Ironically, the two men who found the accusations that Jefferson was an atheist in the campaign of 1800, (most of which were coming from the clergy), most reprehensible were two of the founders who were very devout Christians -- Benjamin Rush and Joseph Bloomfield (the governor of NJ in 1800). I wrote all about this in the chapter on the 1800 election in my book (sorry, that chapter's not available as a freebie.) Both Rush and Bloomfield were ardently opposed to the clergy interfering in politics. Rush was one of the few, if not the only, person that Jefferson confided in about the clergy's attacks, and wrote a killer letter to Jefferson about it. Bloomfield actually delivered an address to the people of New Jersey urging them to look not at Jefferson's religion but at his actions, which were proof that, even if he wasn't religious, he was very moral. Bloomfield's big example to demonstrate this was that, while it was the very hypocritical "Christian" politicians who had engaged in the speculation in Continental Congress securities (essentially making a fortune by ripping off Revolutionary War veterans), Jefferson would have no part of it. That story has so many parallels to the way today's so-called "Christian" politicians behave that I decided to include the entire thing in detail in my book. It's a great "some things never change" story.
Barton, of course, completely omits that both Bloomfield and Rush completely opposed politicking from the pulpit, which Barton thinks there should be no limits on, and only brings them up in his writings to count them among all those Christian founders who did things like founding Bible societies.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 22, 2010 6:30 PM
The American Creation contributor who called Rodda irrelevant is conservative,
Ahhhh now it all makes sense. From the way he was talking, I thought he owned the whole damn blog or something! But nope, apparently it was another fundie "conservative" on a typical fundie "conservative" ego trip or something like that.
Posted by: 386sx | March 22, 2010 10:34 PM
apparently it was another fundie "conservative" on a typical fundie "conservative" ego trip or something like that.
Not really, he is a Burkean and a Thomist. Sympathetic to religious conservatism, but by no means a "fundie."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | March 22, 2010 11:04 PM
Upon a recent trip to the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. I was disappointed when I gazed up under the dome and saw that four of the five chosen inscriptions mentioned God or the creator.
Of course these were all of the bland deist explanatory type pf god used to establish a divine principle against which the tyranny of men could be contrasted rather than the personal savior type used by evangelical Christians.
Still, I couldn't help feeling that Christians had chosen these quotations to make it appear as though Jefferson where first and foremost a believer in their god.
Perhaps the considerable distance from the memorial to Jefferson's grave in Monticello prevents his body from rotating at high speed.
Posted by: Lance | March 23, 2010 12:21 AM
386sx,
Ditto Jon's comment @42. I've had some real battles with that particular conservative, and I don't like him one bit. He fancies himself rather more intelligent than anyone he disagrees with, and regularly mistakes misguided snarkiness for a well-constructed argument. He's a pedant and a persistently misguided one. But he's definitely not a fundamentalist, which I would say is perhaps his only redeeeming quality.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 23, 2010 5:54 AM
James @44
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named seems a bit fitting
Posted by: Anna | March 23, 2010 9:36 AM
Okay sorry for mistaking the mystery commenter for a religious fundamentalist. Sorry about that.
Posted by: 386sx | March 23, 2010 9:51 AM
There's no mystery about who the commenter is. All you have to do is read the comments at the AC link that Ed put in the first sentence of his post to see who it is. It's Tom Van Dyke, one of the bloggers at AC. I just didn't use his name in my first comment because it wasn't necessary to say what I wanted to say, and then everybody who knows who he is kept not using his name.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 23, 2010 10:44 AM