I'm struck by Dagnall's response today and one yesterday, purportedly
to Hoffman's thesis but actually to Hoffman personally.  Obviously,
they have very strong opinions--this subject has touched a tender
spot.  Hummm.  And no effort whatsoever to rebut Hoffman's evidence
(which he is careful to say is circumstantial) with solid,
controvening evidence (in fact, Dagnall explicitly says that's for
someone else to do--he'll do the easy thing and launch an ad hominem
attack on Hoffman).  Isn't this simply killing the messenger because
of the message?  Seems pretty regressive; a case of arrested
development?

[log in to unmask]