It doesn't seem to get into his head, Graham. You couldn't shift it with a pic ax.

It's like he looks at a temp chart for the past 8 or 9 years and sees it pointing north in a big way. So save you breath/keyboard strokes. Look he could end up frost bitten and still think its 40 degrees and the frost bite is sun burn.

Dear alias blairbar,

You say: "We are talking about VALUES/BELIEFS. We are not talking about statements that are capable of being proven wrong"

Once again you are proven wrong. We are not merely talking about values and beliefs - quite a few of your statements and mine that are empirical claims and can be tested against the evidence, as can beliefs statements (unless you still have a belief in the tooth fairy or black cats bringing bad luck).

There is no single study (or survey) showing that the majority of eminent historians who assess Windschuttle's work as partial - and inadequate. You simple have to look at the responses in the professional journals to find evidence of that. (Interestingly, almost all of Windschuttle's supporters are non-historians who like the song he sings.) These are not my beliefs but facts.

Or you could go to the records of the debate Windschuttle with Henry Reynolds on ABC television, the National Press Club or the special conference of historians at the National Museum in Canberra. In response to the many criticisms of his work raised at these functions Windschuttle failed dismally to answer his critics and pretended that the criticisms were mere ad hominem.

While Windschuttle accused historians of having political agendas, he claims to have no political agenda of his own. Hypocrisy.

As for your (empirical) claim that "he has had a few books out there for people to read, and numerous journal articles etc published so he can be criticized/evaluated/ praised/damned", I repeat that since 1992 he has put none of his publications on the line through the normal commercial publishing houses. Google Macleay Press which he founded in 1993.

As for my own publications, my last two books - one commissioned the other accepted in mss by a commercial publisher - sold out (one with a print run of 4000 and the other 3000). And there was no nom de plume. And you?

Elizabeth

Online Opinion.... go back and try and read what you 'all' have written. If there ever was a rocketship to mars.. I beg you all to get on it, don't you know history is always one sided bull(I have to write faeces in place of sh..t, please excuse the pathetic "FILTERING" ), you all sound like you just came from the mad hatters tea party to me.
" windschuttle" what sort of airbus is that anyway... mummmble mumble n good on yer spikey stick it in em!

Dear Spikey
"Once again you are proven wrong. We are not merely talking about values and beliefs"
I was arguing that it is wrong for persons who use nom-de plumes, aliases etc to attack persons who use their real names. That is a value I believe in. I was making a moral judgment. You argue differently citing the reasons for use of nom-de-plumes, aliases etc. But neither of us can be proven right or wrong.
"almost all of Windschuttle's supporters are non-historians who like the song he sings.) These are not my beliefs but facts.". Well as an esteemed academic (although I notice like Keith Windschuttle, the Ph D has still eluded you), one simple reference could establish that it is indeed a fact. If you wish to make factual assertions it is your responsibility to back them up not my responsibilty to check them out.
""As for your (empirical) claim that "he has had a few books out there for people to read, and numerous journal articles etc published so he can be criticized/evaluated/ praised/damned", I repeat that since 1992 he has put none of his publications on the line through the normal commercial publishing houses. Google Macleay Press which he founded in 1993.""
As you well know people can easily access many of his articles, old and new at his web page. And his web page states as you correctly point out that his recent books have indeed being published by his own publishing company. http://www.sydneyline.com/Home.htm
So is my claim wrong?
Congratulations on your most recent publication on Case Management. Your field of study and scholarship seems very interesting and challenging.
Regards
Blair (retired non- PhD economist)

Dear alias blairbar,

"I was arguing that it is wrong for persons who use nom-de plumes, aliases etc to attack persons who use their real names. That is a value I believe in." Yes I agree, but that was just one of your several arguments.

On the other hand, perhaps you're better off restricting yourself to values and beliefs. When it comes to facts, you get things horribly wrong. Nothing in what you assume about my academic life and publishing is true, except my field is "very interesting and challenging". Oops! (And that's an empirical statement and not a moral position).

The fact that Windschuttle has an accessible web page is no guarantee of quality. Uncle and Auntie Cobbly can put up a website these days. Most ideologues want their beliefs to be accessed - and absorbed - by the multitudes. The fact remains: all his recent books are self-published and I'm aware of no refereed journal publication.

On the assumption that you're not merely a member of Windschuttle's cheer squad, I'll give you a hand with some names to help with your research. But remember we are all restricted space-wise on OLO.

Chief cheer squad members: John Howard, Janet Albrechtsen, Imre Salusinszky, Frank Devine, Christopher Pearson, Paul Sheehan, John Dawson and (not without reservations) Geoffrey Blainey. The last two are historians, breaking the sequence of journalists.

Chief critics: Stuart Mcintyre, Cassandra Pybus, David Day, Henry Reynolds, Ian McFarlane, Lyndall Ryan, Robert Manne, Shayne Breen, Christine Williamson, James Boyce, Andrew Markus, Ann McGrath, John Mulvaney, Rebe Taylor, Andrew Bonnell, Dirk Moses, Naomi Parry, and Aboriginal historians: Peggy Patrick and Greg Lehman. Most are historians.

Regards
Elizabeth

Well Elizabeth
If you are now Dr Elizabeth Moore congratulations.
"Nothing in what you assume about my academic life and publishing is true". Well blame Charles Sturt University if their information about you is out-of-date or me if you are you are not the Elizabeth Moore mentioned on their website :http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/humss/staff/elizabeth_moore.htm

"The fact that Windschuttle has an accessible web page is no guarantee of quality". Who said it was a guarantee of quality, not me.
Stuart Mcintyre? Is that the same ex-communist as Keith Windschuttle?
And what is your point about aboriginal historians? They somehow have some unique insight into Australian history that transcends the boundaries of accepted research and scholarship?
Regards
Blair