Readers of this blog will recall that a few days ago I challenged a post from Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education’s George Purvis claiming that census records showed that Abraham Lincoln owned a slave in Springfield in 1860. Other blogs soon picked this up, offering even more detailed discussion of the evidence in question.
Anyone can visit there and see that I posted only an image of Lincoln’s 1860 census, no comments at all —NONE!!! So how does Simpson get to the point I said she was a slave?? He is assuming. Shouldn’t do that Brooks.
Clearly George wants visitors to his undervisited chatroom. Anyone who consults my post will see that I referred to his blog entry, which is entitled:
George left no doubt as to what he claimed he had found in the comments section to his blog entry:
Oh, George, now you’ve gone and done it. You’ve proved that you are stupid and a liar.
You couldn’t have done that without you.
George then decided to reveal his secret sexual fantasies:
To Mackey’s corruption of my name, all I have to say is this. Mackey I must be a Perv I have this burning desire to have sex with your face.
I’d see a doctor to take care of that burning desire, George, although I’m also sure you can work with Carl Roden to come up with a story about your fantasy. At least George admits he’s a deviant.
Of course, to be stupid, a liar, and a deviant is par for the course for one of Connie Chastain’s favorite commenters at Backsass!, but then again George isn’t much different from her other favorites when it comes to the first two characteristics. At least, unlike “Austin,” he posts under his real name (ever wonder why “Austin,” the poster of many names and multiple genders, is so afraid to reveal his/her real identity? Guess the “skeer” is on him/her real bad, at least in his/her head).
Note that not a single Confederate heritage advocate has stood up and stated the obvious: George Purvis’s claims are ridiculous and his discussion of the matter is dishonest. Could this be because they don’t know any better? Or is it because they have no respect for history? Chastain’s already told us that their claims about “heritage” simply obscure what’s really going on in the movement.
We await the usual Chastain response … that George Purvis didn’t mean what he said and didn’t say what he meant, and that to take him (or anyone else) at their word is to twist those very words. She has a future teaching at an English department.
Now, I understand that some people will ask how dumb George Purvis is. I think that’s a rhetorical question, with people vying to offer amusing answers. The evidence is already out there to suggest just how dumb (and dishonest) he is. Jerry Dunford (another Chastain commenter who’s not very bright, a stranger to telling the truth, and who has his own issues with bigotry … par for the course with Connie’s beloved commenters) has his work cut out for him. Rather, the real question is how anyone expects rational human beings to take Confederate heritage advocates seriously when they have no problem with George, Jerry, and Connie and her crew?
Then again, many of them don’t have a problem with Matthew Heimbach, either. Birds of a feather …