Joyce A. Aros
Oh, Dear! What have I started?...
Mon May 08, 8:05

...BJ. Thank you for trying to unite both Mike and I in our perspectives on the History discussions we've been examining.

We come from opposite ends, apparently, and I do not want to drag on in my defense but I also want Mike to understand that there is no 'looking-down-my-nose' attitude on my part. I don't know him, have never read his research, and probably won't as it will be way over my head.

Too many times I have pointed out my lack of education and so that is why my approach is unusual. For example; referring to my original post on this thread which was meant to stir up some discussion with humour, on the serious side this is how I viewed the incident.

Ike Clanton had been in town most of the day and had no confrontation, good or bad, with anyone including the Earps who were in the same building with him when he was having a lunch. Suddenly, out of nowhere and for np apparent reason, Holliday enters and immediately begins a verbal attack on Ike. It seems to go on for a few minutes before there is any interference. However, though most of the account is based on Ike's testimony, it appears this did happen with perhaps some variation.

So, when I read this, I ask why Holliday chose this time to behave in this manner with no provocation? This doesn't really make sense to me. Does academic historic analyses mean we cannot question? What threats is Holliday talking about? They had to have been done before this moment. Nothing said afterword could apply to this, could it? So it is beginning to sound like Doc is just deliberately trying to provoke Ike and I am asking why.

This is how I approach these accounts. To me, it is only reasonable to question what is actually going on, what is being said at the time, how it is meant, and so on. It is not for the sake of starting arguments but for trying to get a clearer picture and understanding. This is logic to me.

My original response to Mike was in asking him to point out what was wrong with my conclusion on any matter he chose by offering a reason why he could not agree or chose to disagree. I don't think that was offensive. Isn't that what all of us are doing here? He still has not offered a support for his own analyses.

That is all I have to say on the subject...finally!

  • Re: put up job!...B.J., Mon May 08 4:18
    At last count, Joyce's top of the board post, has elicited 80+ responses. Multiple historians have responded and posted well thought out, evidence based historical perspectives, including for and against... more
    • Oh, Dear! What have I started?... — Joyce A. Aros, Mon May 08 8:05