southern difference
Hugh Lawson
This is a convenient presentation of a famous study which puports to
show southern cultural difference.
I haven't decided what to think about this. I'm looking around for
examples of northerners looking into "southern difference". What kinds
of southern difference attracts the attention of northern social
scientists?
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/7670/activity/honor.htm
It's interesting to speculate what they are making of this article
in Valdosta. Does it annoy them? Do they think the article has it
about right? Do they feel condescended to? Etc. But that of course is
a matter of southern thought and is not part of my inquiry.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
![[blank]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjX2c51nsA8DKleNioKvx0Zgu8BST_gPdVrIXxO5XfOX98XZGw=s40-c)
[blank]
so interested in studying what northerners think of "southerners."
I note in this particular example that the white southerner in
question makes the very mistake he often attributes to (white)
northerners (what makes a northerner is never truly defined by this
particular white southerner) in speaking simply of "southerner"
instead of making critical racial distinctions. It is amusing to note
this mistake in Dr. Lawson's own work, given his willingness to chide
others about it.
> I haven't decided what to think about this. I'm looking around for
> examples of northerners looking into "southern difference". What kinds
> of southern difference attracts the attention of northern social
> scientists?
I think it's far more interesting to ask about the sort of white
southerner who would find this interesting .... and who would post it
on a usenet group devoted to the American Civil War, although it is a
study concerning another time period. A qualified professional
historian would not make that error. Perhaps Dr. Lawson's error is
explained by the fact that in his peculiar way he is still fighting
the Civil War.
After all, some people study difference, some people study common
ground. It would be revealing to examine why these choices are made.
Simply restricting oneself to difference may lead to a skewed and thus
flawed set of conclusions concerning motivation and outlook.
It's interesting to speculate what Dr. Lawson is making of this
article, which he deems worthy of brining to your attention. Does it
annoy him? Does he think the article has it about right? Does he feel
treated in a condescending manner (oh, irony!)? Is he smug? Is he
representative of white Southerners? Does his inquiry have any point
to it? Might it not be better carried out elsewhere? Will he ever
share it with his fellow professional historians? Does he mean what
he says? Or can we safely conclude that the result will be more
humbug and a mere piffle, designed so we can shower him with fish and
peanuts?
Hugh Lawson
> I think it would be worthwhile to study why some white southerners are
> so interested in studying what northerners think of "southerners."
Then study it.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I think it would be worthwhile to study why some white southerners are
> > so interested in studying what northerners think of "southerners."
>
> Then study it.
In your case, it's because you're worried about what others think of
you. You often raised as a concern that people worry about what
others think of them, and, as you've admitted, in saying something
like that one gives voice to one's fears. So I just apply your own
reasoning to you.
But I wouldn't want to generalize based upon you as the sample set. :)
[blank]
[blank]
Remember when you demonstrated how much you held everyone else here in
contempt?
"But still, it'll work ok to pander to the common Awcusan mind....
Sometimes you just have to do this."
Hugh Lawson
Hugh Lawson
What Brooks has typed is dimestore psychoanalysis.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
> > Nice typing Brooks.
>
> An improvement over yours.
More good typing.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Sep 19, 4:45 pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > I think it would be worthwhile to study why some white southerners are
> > > > so interested in studying what northerners think of "southerners."
>
> > > Then study it.
>
> > In your case, it's because you're worried about what others think of
> > you. You often raised as a concern that people worry about what
> > others think of them, and, as you've admitted, in saying something
> > like that one gives voice to one's fears. So I just apply your own
> > reasoning to you.
>
> > But I wouldn't want to generalize based upon you as the sample set. :)
>
> What Brooks has typed is dimestore psychoanalysis.
That would inflate your value. But I'm simply repeating what you have
said, so, Hugh, deal with it.
[blank]
I'm sure that's what people thought of you when you said this ... or
tried to define racism out of existence ... or when you said:
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have
fewer
chances to get their way."
Now that's humbug. :)
Hugh Lawson
Hugh Lawson
Brooks follows the path of his exemplar Davis.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
Hugh would rather not be held accountable for what he types, and he'd
rather not have you be reminded of what he has said.
Have a nice weekend, Hugh. Hope your anger keeps you warm.
Hugh Lawson
Brooks should stop obsessing about Hugh's feelings.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
scribe7716
> Brooks should stop obsessing about Hugh's feelings.
Oh my God, you've gone third person on us.
[blank]
Not for the first time.
----
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Still Fighting The Civil War
From: Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com>
Date: 29 Apr 2008 21:28:33 -0400
Brooks Simpson <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Apr 29, 6:06Â pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > Brooks Simpson <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > We'll see.
> >
> > Brooks proves again that he can type.
>
> There goes Hugh ducking again.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Coward. But I welcome Hugh's concession that he can't play in the big
> leagues. That's why he posts here.
Brooks is trying to hurt Hugh's feelings.
----
or this one:
----
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: what are you reading?
From: Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com>
Date: 12 Apr 2008 20:47:10 -0400
Brooks Simpson <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hugh's entire posting career reminds one of the story about the person
> whose work was characterized as original and good, with the caveat
> that what was good wasn't original, and what was original wasn't good.
>
> Now, that story isn't original with me, but it is certainly good, and
> in Hugh's case, quite appropriate. That's why he turned down the
> chance to present his views in front of his fellow historians at the
> Southern Historical Association meeting. He knew he'd be exposed ...
> although we now also know what Hugh thinks of when that phrasing is
> used, especially when he's posting at 3 AM.
Hugh is always on Brooks's mind.
----
Hugh needs new material. But that's especially challenging given his
plagiarizing practices. He even stole "piffle" from other posters
here, including Maggard..
Hugh Lawson
> Hugh needs new material. But that's especially challenging given his
> plagiarizing practices. He even stole "piffle" from other posters
> here, including Maggard..
Piffle.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
> Piffle.
Speaking of piffle reminds one of Brooks D. Simpson.
Simpson has made several references to confessions of plagiarism, or
words to that effect.
I have several times dismissed Simpson's accusations of plagiarism,
and continue to dismiss them.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
> Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> writes:
> Simpson has made several references to [Hugh G. Lawson's] confessions of plagiarism, or
> words to that effect.
For example ... here's Hugh G. Lqwson, sometimes known as Hughie G.
Lawson, formerly of Murrat State University, and a PhD recipient from
Tulane University, confessing plagiarism:
----
> > > To quote Hugh from 2002:
> > > "This is very good evidence for my theory of the northern conception
> > > of the South as Other."
> > > I'll spare you other evidence of Hugh's claim of originiality in this
> > > regard.
> > In the early days of my inquiry I did overestimate the originality of
> > my TSAO posts. I had forgotten about Reinhold Niebuhr's description
> > of the myth of American innocence in _The Irony of American History_,
> > which I read in college--I still own my college copy. I had also
> > forgotten C. Vann Woodward's reference to Niebuhr in one of his
> > essays, and Woodward's comments on this issue.
> > In my emails to a number of scholars I've said to them something like
> > this, "I've been making an inquiry into something I call "the South as
> > Other in Northern Thought". None of them warned me off.
> > I also searched for some way to get into this idea through
> > the usual indexes. There are are 19 entries on "the south as other"
> > in Google scholar. But looking through them didn't help much. Same
> > results with more traditional indexes.
> > Indexes started being useful when I identified Jennifer Rae Greeson
> > and David Jansson. Jansson uses "internal orientalism". Now I just
> > use citation indexes on them. That is, by looking under their names I
> > can identify subsequent articles that reference their work in
> > footnotes. Vernon Burton was also very friendly, even sending me a
> > copy of his presentation on the topic. I believe it was Dennis
> > Maggard who pointed him out. Maggard is definitely the smartest poster
> > in awcusa in my time here.
> > An instance of my early overestimate appears in this awcusa post of
> > mine:
> > My reflections on "the South as Other" AFAIK are derived
> > entirely from my own experience, though it's possible that I
> > picked it up from something I read somewhere.
> > Message-ID: <slrn9n37be.nn2.hlaw...@cumquat.froot.com>
> > August of 2001.
> > I'm happy to see that AFAIK there, as well as the concession that I
> > may have picked it up from something I read. I'm happy to abandon
> > that early claim. Nowadays I try to say "my TSAO posts" in order to
> > avoid this difficulty.
-----
> I have several times dismissed Simpson's accusations of plagiarism,
> and continue to dismiss them.
To no effect.
-----
On Mar 27, 2007, 3:16 pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> bdsimps...@yahoo.com writes:
> > The subject of southern distinctiveness has been around for a long
> > time, as has the notion of the "South as Other." I have previously
> > highlighted several sources that predate your declaration of interest
> > and originality.
> Please cite the newsgroup articles.
Now, Hugh, I've already done that previously. Even recently. No
need
for me to do it again. But I'll indulge you.
The newsgroup has had many discussions about this issue of southern
distinctiveness. Here's one from Dennis Maggard back in 1996:
"Perhaps even more to the point, the fact you seem to miss is that
although
the CSA was defeated, the South was not destroyed, the South still
exists
and still has a cause, which is by no means to say that some of the
more
radical pro-Southern posters here best represent it, but certainly it
has a
distinctive culture and a world view which are still very much alive
today,
and many of the issues we discuss here have their modern day
extensions.
Indeed, many of the more emotional discussions that go on here are
not
really about the distant past at all but are actually discussions
about the
present and the not too distant past thinly veiled in Civil War
allegories."
As for the scholarship that predate your declaration of intent and
originality, I've most recently cited Vernon's talk (2000) on
February
21, 2007 (you replied to the post, so to express ignorance of it now
would be fascinating, especially as I've refreshed the thread for
today); I recently pointed to another piece of writing (a commentary
in the May 1998 issue of Labor History by Grace Hale that read, in
part):
"First, Gregory assumes that "southern" means something and that we
know what it is. Thus despite the marshalling of statistics and the
hard march of numbers, he implies that an analytical concept as
complicated as cultural identity needs no explanation. Designating
the
South as a place and not a direction always presupposes a kind of
southern exceptionalism. Gregory taps in here to a long and
complicated American history of the South as other, as the place of
American lack, American guilt, and American horror, as the space upon
which American responsibility is projected and rejected.
"Southerness"
is, in effect, our home-grown "Orientalism." The South is the place
where people lynch and are lynched, where the accent itself is a sign
of a lack of intelligence, and where folks sleep with their cousins.
Surely the South must be the source of that tragedy of the American
working class too, must be in some way responsible for the increasing
conservatism of all Americans but white workers in particular.
Gregory
is too fine a historian to make these assumptions himself. But I
think
that they linger there, behind our easy sense that there is a South
and that we know without really needing to say what it means."
That's just recently Both those works predate your claims of
originality, and they were highlighted recently, so why would you
want
to be thus exposed again? You failed to credit Edward Said's work
for
years here, although it appears you were aware of it and appropriated
it without giving due credit until you were prodded to do so (it was
not until 2003 that you admitted using Said here, although you
clearly
had been borrowing from him for years in spaeking about "the South as
Other"). You yourself have since been forced to admit that there are
other sources on these topics, just as earlier you had to admit that
books such as Richard Current's Northernizing the South (1983) long
predated your posts on othering, etc.. So consult the archives.
Maybe Ray won't call you a cyberstalker. :)
As you've responded before to evidence I've highlighted, I see no
need
to cite it again. Besides, as a retired professor you have plenty of
time to amass the evidence concerning your own plagiarism as you
continue to develop your explanation for it (that reference to Google
Scholar backfired on you). I have graduate students preparing for
exams and dissertation defenses and a youngster who needs to
interview
me for National History Day. You just have your reputation to mind.
Tend to it. Cheers!
-----
For you to post about this again out of the blue before 6 AM your time
suggests that your guilt keeps you up at night.
We all know what you post about at 3 AM your time.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
I have dismissed Simpson's silly accusations, and they remain
dismissed.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Raymond O'Hara
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> I have dismissed Simpson's silly accusations, and they remain
> dismissed.
>
> --
> Hugh Lawson
what is a student researched ghost written biograohy called?
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> I have dismissed Simpson's silly accusations, and they remain
> dismissed.
Hugh may want to dismiss them (after admitting that they were on the
mark), but they don't remain "dismissed." They remain on the record,
and Hugh G. Lawson's own words substantiate them (how ironic ...
Hugh's *own* words, for once).
Hugh forgets that he's not a judge. He can't dismiss anything.
Hugh can try to explain how he did not plagiarize after he admitted
that his claims of originality were unwarranted and highly
exaggerated. His own words (there's that ironic turn again) indict
him.
Let's put it this way ... if the accusations were so "silly," Hugh
wouldn't feel the need to "dismiss" them again and again. Note he
doesn't claim to *disprove* them. He doesn't even try ... because he
can't. His own words are the best evidence that he accepts the burden
of the accusation as true.
Hugh, you're just a grumpy old man whose restless resentment has
surfaced yet again.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
Simpson's statements dismissed.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
Hugh G. Lawson can dismiss whatever he wants .... but he has confessed
he can't disprove evidence that he plagiarized the work of others and
presented the ideas of others as his own, because he's admitted the
truth of that charge.
Hughie G. Lawson, aka Hugh G. Lawson, formerly of Murray State
University, has admitted to his commiting plagiarism. As he's said,
"In the early days of my inquiry I did overestimate the originality of
my TSAO posts." Nothing he says now can undo that. He can't dismiss
this without dismissing himself.
Hugh Lawson
> Hugh G. Lawson can dismiss whatever he wants
Indeed I can. And I dismiss Simpson's foolish accusations.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Hugh G. Lawson can dismiss whatever he wants
>
> Indeed I can. And I dismiss Simpson's foolish accusations.
... but he can't deny they're true. He's admitted as much.
"In the early days of my inquiry I did overestimate the originality of
my TSAO posts."
--Hughie G. Lawson, March 27, 2007.
Was Lawson lying then or is he lying now?
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
As I said, I have dismissed all Simpson's accusations. Only I can make
a confession of something, and I haven't made any confession of
plagiarism.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> As I said, I have dismissed all Simpson's accusations. Only I can make
> a confession of something, and I haven't made any confession of
> plagiarism.
Of course you have, Hugh. Now you're calling yourself a liar ... and
at 1:23 AM your time, it must be keeping you awake.
Hugh Lawson suffers sleepless nights due to thinking about his acts of
plagiarism. How silly.
Confession's good for your soul, Hugh, as well as for your ability to
get a good night's sleep. But then you seem to spend a lot of
sleepless nights.
Hugh Lawson
> Now you're calling yourself a liar
Another B.S. accusation.
It's also dismissed.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
[snip]
And now it approaches 3 AM in the Lawson household. Hugh looks bleary-
eyed at his screen, while the sweat runs down his face. He can't
sleep. The knowledge that he's a plagiarist gnaws at him: the
knowledge that he's been caught terrifies him. Post as he might to
deny "silly" charges, he can't let it rest. He can't even convince
himself that he's not a plagiarist. He's doomed to a lifetime of
posting dismissal after dismissal, betraying an uneasiness that no one
accepts his word. Perhaps repetition will do the trick, he thinks in
his Palin-esque imagination. He's tried to dismiss the charge: he's
begged his antagonist to stop reminding the world of his sin. Yet
guilt keeps him awake.
So he looks at the screen, afraid to look at the mirror, where he'll
see the face of Hughie G. Lawson, plagiarist.
Hugh Lawson
Simpson is the one who does all the typing about this. I dismiss his
accusations outright.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
Sure you do. But the time stamp shows when you were up. And you
can't deny your quoted admission of guilt.
[blank]
I don't type your replies. I also don't type the material I quote
from you. So it appears you do some typing after all on this subject,
espcially when you are up in the middle of the night, unable to sleep.
Watch, you'll reply again. All you'll do is to draw more attention to
your plagiarism in a mortibund newsgroup.
One of your many problems, Hugh, is that when you find a theme, you
repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. We've seen your comments about
typing and dismissing and your declarations of humbug and piffle time
and time again. You lack originality.
Then again, that's why you're a plagiarist. You'll remind us of that
every time you repeat yourself.
[blank]
Hugh Lawson
> I don't type your replies. I also don't type the material I quote
> from you. So it appears you do some typing after all on this subject,
> espcially when you are up in the middle of the night, unable to sleep.
>
> Watch, you'll reply again. All you'll do is to draw more attention to
> your plagiarism in a mortibund newsgroup.
>
> One of your many problems, Hugh, is that when you find a theme, you
> repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. We've seen your comments about
> typing and dismissing and your declarations of humbug and piffle time
> and time again. You lack originality.
>
> Then again, that's why you're a plagiarist. You'll remind us of that
> every time you repeat yourself.
Piffle.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Raymond O'Hara
so you admit it.
ALL NOTE. BROOKS D SIMPSON just admitted his "work" is not his work.
[blank]
wrote:
> On Sep 29, 1:37 pm, "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 3:51 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 28, 3:18 pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > [ snip ]
>
> > > > I have dismissed Simpson's silly accusations, and they remain
> > > > dismissed.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Hugh Lawson
> > > > hlaw...@triad.rr.com
>
> > > what is a student researched ghost written biograohy called?
>
> > Something Ray reads.
>
> so you admit it.
What's "it"? Raymond, you've never actually read anything I've
written. But I assume you read the comics and junk mail.
> ALL NOTE. BROOKS D SIMPSON just admitted his "work" is not his work.
Another case of Raymond mistaking a horse chestnut for a chestnut
horse. Someone so stupid couldn't read anything I've written, and
clearly couldn't understand it.
Now, continue being a poor boy's Dennis Maggard.
By the way, Ray, you've never denied that you've lost your
"functioning." That explains much.
Hugh Lawson
> By the way, Ray, you've never denied that you've lost your
> "functioning." That explains much.
Brooks gets creepy again.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > By the way, Ray, you've never denied that you've lost your
> > "functioning." That explains much.
>
> Brooks gets creepy again.
Hugh, you know a lot about being creepy. I find it creepy that you
post at 3 AM about child molestation. Why does that notion keep you
up at night?
Ray's posted elsewhere about sleeping with other people's relatives.
I guess you don't find that creepy. I find it creepy that you don't
find it creepy. But then it says much about you that you embrace a
known homophobe as someone with whom you get along.
Hugh Lawson
C.M. German
"[blank]" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:137b19fb-f53f-4db6...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 30, 4:08 am, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > By the way, Ray, you've never denied that you've lost your
> > "functioning." That explains much.
>
> Brooks gets creepy again.
Hugh, you know a lot about being creepy. I find it creepy that you
post at 3 AM about child molestation. Why does that notion keep you
up at night?
Ray's posted elsewhere about sleeping with other people's relatives.
Everybody sleeps with other people's relatives
Hugh Lawson
Brooks aka "[blank]" is of course Arizona State University's own
Professor Brooks D. Simpson, of the ASU History Department.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
[blank]
> Ray's posted elsewhere about sleeping with other people's relatives.
>
> Everybody sleeps with other people's relatives
Not the precise relatives Ray mentioned.
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Sep 30, 4:08 am, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > By the way, Ray, you've never denied that you've lost your
> > > > "functioning." That explains much.
>
> > > Brooks gets creepy again.
>
> > Hugh, you know a lot about being creepy. I find it creepy that you
> > post at 3 AM about child molestation. Why does that notion keep you
> > up at night?
>
> > Ray's posted elsewhere about sleeping with other people's relatives.
> > I guess you don't find that creepy. I find it creepy that you don't
> > find it creepy. But then it says much about you that you embrace a
> > known homophobe as someone with whom you get along.
>
> Brooks gets creepier still.
Well, here Hugh goes again, repeating the same mantra. :)
But at least we now know that he finds homophobia acceptable and
protests against bigotry to be creepy.
Even Ray suggested Hugh was a Lost Causer who was a slavery
apologist. With friends like that ...
[blank]
> Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> writes:
Hughie G. Lawson, aka Hugh G. Lawson, formerly of Murray State
University, is outed on his nighttime obsessions. he resents that.
Hugh Lawson
>
> Well, here Hugh goes again, repeating the same mantra. :)
>
> But at least we now know that he finds homophobia acceptable and
> protests against bigotry to be creepy.
>
> Even Ray suggested Hugh was a Lost Causer who was a slavery
> apologist. With friends like that ...
How creepy is Brooks D. Simpson of Arizona State University.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
Brooks keeps stalking me. He should give it up.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
> Everybody sleeps with other people's relatives
How true.
The really sad thing is that Brooks D. Simpson of Arizona State
University created this thread, and its heading, hoping to hurt my
feelings.
How sad life must be for Brooks.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Raymond O'Hara
>
> - Show quoted text -
and i've pointed out where you've endorsed KKKirk lyons
[blank]
wrote:
As Hugh says, you don't believe what you say.
On the other hand, Ray, why did you post this?
"may your mother get anally raped by a dozen aids victims" -- Ray
O'Hara, March 25, 2005.
Hugh doesn't find that creepy. I do. In fact, I find you to be
deeply disturbed. What sort of disgusting human being would say such
a thing?
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Sep 30, 1:45 pm, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> writes:
> > > > "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 4:08 am, Hugh Lawson <hlaw...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > > > > By the way, Ray, you've never denied that you've lost your
> > > > > > > "functioning." That explains much.
>
> > > > > > Brooks gets creepy again.
>
> > > > > Hugh, you know a lot about being creepy. I find it creepy that you
> > > > > post at 3 AM about child molestation. Why does that notion keep you
> > > > > up at night?
>
> > > > > Ray's posted elsewhere about sleeping with other people's relatives.
> > > > > I guess you don't find that creepy. I find it creepy that you don't
> > > > > find it creepy. But then it says much about you that you embrace a
> > > > > known homophobe as someone with whom you get along.
>
> > > > Brooks gets creepier still.
>
> > > Brooks aka "[blank]" is of course Arizona State University's own
> > > Professor Brooks D. Simpson, of the ASU History Department.
>
> > Hughie G. Lawson, aka Hugh G. Lawson, formerly of Murray State
> > University, is outed on his nighttime obsessions. he resents that.
>
> Brooks keeps stalking me. He should give it up.
Now you are stealing from O'Hara.
Interesting effort on your part to divert attention from your
plagiarism amd your interest in child molestation, both of which lead
to your sleepless nights.
Here's what Ray O'Hara has to say about that:
--- Ray on June 18, 2006---
"a guilty conscience needs no accuser"
you would know, your soul would be scarred, soon the face in the
mirror is
looking at you with accusing eyes.
your brain begins squirming like a toad in boiling water. you by a
rifle get
up on the roof and begin shooting your neighbors, the police swat
teams
shoots you like a mad dog. your mother is embarrassed{unless you have
the
decency to kill her first} nobody attends your funeral. ... the
horror...the
horror....
---
Sound like Ray's been thinking through the process for himself.
[blank]
> "C.M. German" <c.ger...@comcast.net> writes:
> > Everybody sleeps with other people's relatives
>
> How true.
Well, now we know a bit too much about your private lives.
Then there's Ray O'Hara, whom Hugh admires ...
"fuck you and your mother too." -- Ray O'Hara, May 1, 2005 ...
What nice boys. How sad life must be for them.
[blank]
> "[blank]" <bdsimpso...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Well, here Hugh goes again, repeating the same mantra. :)
>
> > But at least we now know that he finds homophobia acceptable and
> > protests against bigotry to be creepy.
>
> > Even Ray suggested Hugh was a Lost Causer who was a slavery
> > apologist. With friends like that ...
>
> How creepy is Brooks D. Simpson of Arizona State University.
Note Hugh does not deny the charges ... again. He just finds it
creepy to be held accountable for what he says, or to be reminded of
what his good friend Ray O'Hara says about him.
Repeat the mantra, Hugh.
Hugh G. Lawson, the pride of Greensboro, North Carolina. Not that
they wanted him to teach there.
[blank]
> "C.M. German" <c.ger...@comcast.net> writes:
> > Everybody sleeps with other people's relatives
>
> How true.
>
> The really sad thing is that Brooks D. Simpson of Arizona State
> University created this thread, and its heading, hoping to hurt my
> feelings.
If one looks at Google Groups, one will see that Hugh G. Lawson
created this thread.
As for the current heading, it's a simple statement of the current
content of the thread.
Hugh G. Lawson does not deny he's a plagiarist. He admits it.
Surely if someone was so smug that they could dismiss a silly thread,
they wouldn't reply. That Hugh repeatedly replies suggests the level
of his resentment and desperation.
Hugh Lawson
Brooks is typing long posts again; he tries too hard. LOL.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
> Well, now we know a bit too much about your private lives.
When Brooks pretends to knowledge of the private lives of others, it
makes Brooks look, umm, creepy.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
When Brooks hides his name under the nym of "[blank]" it makes Brooks
seem ashamed of what he writes.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
> I do. In fact, I find you to be
> deeply disturbed. What sort of disgusting human being would say such
> a thing?
When Brooks writes this about somebody else, it seems obvious that
he's projecting his self-disgust on another.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
> Note Hugh does not deny the charges ... again.
When Brooks types accusations in a thread topic, it makes him look
childish and resentful.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Raymond O'Hara
>
> - Show quoted text -
i didn't. you are a liar. pure and simple
Hugh Lawson
slotrot
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray, you are two-thirds right; he just isn't pure.
Hugh Lawson
Changing the thread topic.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
Watch out for Simpson, Ray. He has become more malicious and creepy
over the past few years.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
Watch out for Simpson, Bob. He is hiking farther down the trail blazed
by his example, Wm. G. Davis.
Simpson gets nasty. I
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com