"Every paragraph [of his article] is replete with false, erroneous, outdated or misleading information" is a misquotation? Why not interrogate them? Why not interrogate him? I think this is my last response to you, Richard, about this matter. Go over and have a conversation with Tom.

I find some things about the six professors' response rather disturbing. As you put it, Ralph, they "in part" offer that "Every paragraph [of his article] is replete with false, erroneous, outdated or misleading information". They then go on to write -- though it isn't quoted -- that "To refute each of these points would, however, take too long and try the patience of the readers."

I'm touched by their concern for the readers, since I am now one. However, this approach relieves them of the responsibility of providing evidence. In fact, I'm hard pressed to see where they refute anything Reeves wrote about the campus, as what little they offer in refutation devolves to opinion. Even their "refutation" of the "open admissions" claim seems strained. They offer that Reeves does not know that the campus is no longer open admissions, but Reeves, in his very first paragraph, says that it admits 95% of its applicants. He does seem to know, though he apparently attaches much less significance to that 5% rejected. This sort of thing shouldn't be dignified by a characterization of having been accused by his colleagues of lying.

I took your rhetorical questions comparing Reeves to Bellesiles (who HNN won't publish) as hortatory (perhaps incorrectly), and I still don't see the support for your charge (which I highlighted above), nor the charge of being a liar (which invokes intent). I'd like to see a little evidentiary meat put on that bone. In that light, vague references to repeated infractions don't seem to make the grade necessary for even a complaint to the editor (and whatever he may take to be due process, as he is the arbiter in such settings).

Normally, (though there are exceptions) somebody lying doesn't provide links to the evidence that he is wrong. Reeves' big sin perhaps (as you might see it), is that he doesn't seem to read responding posts, or respond to them. I well remember KC Johnson (who I respect) claiming something in his blog that wasn't there, and even providing a link to it. KC demonstrates the virtue of reading his own blog, and the responses, and assiduously correcting errors. That seems to be the complaint with Reeves. Perhaps that should be an accepted norm -- that a blog author attend to criticisms and make corrections. Still, that seems to fall short of the kind of evidence one would like to see for the heavy charge offered. Just a thought.

Let's be very, very, very clear about the way this alleged traffic we get from Clippatria works. We have the same counter, so I am not just making this up. Almost all of our traffic from Cliopatria actually comes from folks who most likely would go to Rebunk anyway. We do not get our traffic from Rebunk Links, but rather from the fact that people come to Cliopatria, and then click on the Rebunk page from the list of blogs to the right of the page. Given that someone clicking on that right hand link has to be pretty familiar with Cliopatria, I'd say that they would be interested in seeing what we have to say anyway.
Yes, our numbers are "modest." We have been in existence for half a year and there are but three of us. Unlike Cliopatria, we do not have an active blogkeeper, the closest being me, and I have a full time academic job which involves teaching, research, and service. Tootle has an academic job which involves the same. Tom is finishing up his dissertation. We are going to add one person in the next week, another in the next month or so. We had a record week last week, with modest numbers, yes, but with a solid readership of which we are proud. We do not owe that readership to anyone, not a person, not another blog. If Cliopatria removed us from any mention on their blog, including the HNN-established sections (over which Cliopatria has no control) our numbers would remain the same and would continue to grow.
At the end of the day, I do not much care about the numbers except that I'd like people to see what we are doing and I think it compares favorably to any history blogs out there. just as the3 best seller lists do not correlate very neatly with quality, I'm not sure that readership does either.
I also think that the "wet behind the ears" comments are rather out of line. All careers start somewhere, and it would be very easy for someone who uses such an ugly phrase to do a simple thing -- Rebunk will facilitate it. We are willing to have Ralph post his vita on Rebunk including only that which he had accomplished up to the age of 33 (we'll give him 35 both because we are charitable and because we are confident). The Rebunkers will offer to post our vitas as they currently stand, as the eldest of us is thirty three. If Ralph's vita at that age is such that he can dismiss someone who through no fault of his own is only 28 or 30, or 33 we'll let him lecture us because of that age factor. If not, then we'd ask him not to use age as a club in these discussions. Our views are and ought to be what matters irrespective of age. Age does not carry with it wisdom. If it did, Ralph would have a difficult time attacking Thomas Reeves. Since he does not, age apparently is merely another weapon in an endless arsenal by which he can attack, but conveniently enough, by which one is not allowed to attack him.
Our readership numbers may be moderate. I'm not certain that has much to do with anything, though ti does make for a nice cheap shot in a seemingly endless line of them.
dc

Thanks, Jon, for the kind word. The "ethos" at Re-buncombe is rather more than strange. I've been attacked twice by Derek and once by Tom. This Tootle attack may be his bid for acceptance as a full fledged Re-buncombite. Cliopatria mediates a third of their modest traffic, I've nominated Derek for membership in two historical societies, and _nothing_ satiates the felt need over there to attack me. Tootle's cheap shot merely indicates that he refuses to understand that Tom Reeves created his own credibility problem.

Mr. Tootle,

If there is a syndrome worthy to be named after Ralph Luker, it is the incessant searching for, reading through, and promotion of other, mostly younger, scholars' blogs. That, my friend, is true Lukerism.

"I am concerned that you are smearing a good scholar without cause. Unless you have some convincing evidence about his scholarship, ..."

There is one incontrovertible case of abuse of evidence in a public forum. That is not a smear, but a fact.

"...I would hope that your sense of professional propriety would keep you from making further attacks on him, or hinting that his scholarship is suspect."

Calling attention to it is not an attack, but a reasonable act of a responsible person. Calling attention to the fact that Mr. Reeves does not respond to comments -- or even seem aware of them -- even when those comments address issues of fact, may well be an attack, but it is also evidence of Mr. Reeves' approach to public discourse.

Since scholarship is a matter of evidence handling and public discourse, it seems reasonable to me to ask Mr. Reeves to address these questions or have his scholarship questioned. Perhaps an enterprising historiography teacher should have their seminar follow the footnotes in some of Mr. Reeves' work and report the findings?