Talk:The Real Anita Hill

Assessment
I assessed this book as a stub because, although it references the main points, a coherent picture of the issue does not emerge, even at cameo scale. For example, 'He claims he helped Thomas threaten another witness into backing down and accuses himself of being "a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine."'

Which other witness? Who? What? Relevance? Clarity? Nat 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good point. What I would like to see is someone presenting an analysis of why The Real Anita Hill is to be considered a discredited book. I have seen a great deal of Brock's self-flagellation, condemning himself as having been wrong for being a conservative, apologizing to Bill Clinton, etc.. What I have not seen is the underlying reporting behind the book being taken apart. Brock's regrets, his feelings of being a gay man hated by conservatives, and (I suspect) his irritation at the failure of his Hillary book (a failure that seems to be where his change of heart began) are not a sufficient reason for dismissing the book. There needs to be something where the interviews, citations of published material, etc. in this elaborately footnoted volume can be demonstrated to be deliberate falsifications when Brock was an 'evil' conservative who was as he says 'blinded by the right.'


 * As I recall, a couple of Wall Street Journal reporters named Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson did a Clarence Thomas book after Brock. I don't recall that they significantly engaged his work at all. (I remember standing in a bookstore right after theirs was published looking in the index for the references to it; there were a few paltry references that basically ignored it, while he essentially ripped theirs to shreds in this review in the pages of the American Spectator.) Brock's The Real Anita Hill essentially stood without significant challenge for a decade until the author decided to repudiate it because his politics changed. If it is as false and baseless as he would like us to believe, someone should be able to show us specific distortions and misrepresentations of facts that can be checked, to put its credibility to rest permanently. Can they? --MollyTheCat 22:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is complete and utter nonsense, Brock himself says that there were certain people who wouldn't interview him because they thought he was to partisan. Only an extremely deluded soul could think that Brocks book stood the test of time before he himself discredited it. It's really pathetic that conservatives today are still bashing Anita Jill with a nearly 20 year old book that original author has himself called propaganda.


 * By the way it is a lie that Brock hasn't disputed any of the so called "facts" in the book. In "Blinded by the Right" Brock talks about the infamous Pube Affidavit. The Affidavit came from two former students of Hill's. One of the students claimed that Hill returned his and the other students term papers with pubic hairs on them. However Brock says that the second student refused to back up the first student's story and yet brock says he published it as fact anyway. Brock goes on and on about how the the only people he interviewed for the book were friends of Thomas's and that he never once talked to any of Hill's friends or supporters. Brock completely demolishes the book and shows it for the piece of trash it is and the fact that there are still people who believe this garbage is truly pathetic.annoynmous 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your critique of what I said might have more credibility if you could spell words like "propoganda" (propaganda) and "say's" (says). Or if you were not so prone to throw around attack words like "complete and utter nonsense," "extremely deluded soul," "pathetic," and "it is a lie." You might try exercising some reading comprehension on what I actually said (about what I have and have not seen, not about the obvious fact that Brock now disowns his book)--assuming you have any verifiable (page numbers, please) evidence to bring forward. Your diatribe doesn't even begin to be a satisfactory response. You might try next time showing a little of the good faith you'd want others to show to you. --MollyTheCat (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my I mispelled a couple words! I love it when people can't engage your arguments they resort to insulting remarks about your spelling. I'm sorry if in the process of typing I didn't do a proper spell check.


 * The fact of the matter is what I said is true. Your statment that Brock never disputed any of the facts in the book is simply false. Go to Google books and type in Blinded by the Right and you will see the passage I talked about. I'm sorry if my language offended you, I was just reacting to the absurdity of and editor citing the credibility of a book the original author has denounced as propaganda.annoynmous 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you perhaps know how to link? If you have any support for what you said, here's a place to put it. And regarding spelling, it directly bears on your own credibility. Or is that "fack" too inconvenient? Again, I want to see something where Brock points to specific facts he distorted, which is a different thing entirely from him feeling embarrassed about it because his politics have done a 180, because he's gay, and because he's decided he wants to tell Bill Clinton he's sorry for his "Troopergate" stuff. Page numbers, links to credible sources (such as the Google Books item you claim to have seen)--all acceptable. Otherwise you are essentially just bloviating. - MollyTheCat (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I refuse to compensate for your laziness. If your so confident that your right than do your own research and prove me wrong. I gave a specific example from the book about the infamous pube affidavit. I also gave the example where Brock said he only talked to friends of thomas.


 * You see when an author refers to a book that he wrote as "propaganda", most reasonable people conclude that the book is unreliable. They don't try and play amateur psychologist and an invent theories like "well he only said that because he feels guilty about being gay".


 * It would be nice if in making arguments that editors would engage in the substance of the argument and not make condescending and insulting comments about spelling. I feel as embarrassed as you do when I see those errors. I value literacy and when I make those mistakes I try to go back and fix them. Sometimes I'm typing too fast and I miss them. Are you really telling me that you've never made a post with a spelling error?


 * If it truly bothers you so much I've gone back and corrected my old posts. I hope this appeases your delicate nature.annoynmous 19:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way if want something specific, try pages 103-104 of "Blinded by the Right". The passage is on google books, all you have to do is look it up.annoynmous 19:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL. You really have nothing, do you? You make a statement challenging a statement of mine, and then because I ask for proof, I'm the one guilty of "laziness"??? Hilarious! And then you get upset because I point out your spelling errors, which speak to your overall credibility just as surely as it would if you showed up for a major speaking engagement wearing torn and dirty jeans, a rumpled shirt, and shoes that were falling apart. And as far as "The passage is on google books": I just checked and at this writing the book is locked down and does not even give a preview, so you'll have to do better than an uncheckable reference.


 * As far as "engage in the substance of the argument," I've been waiting for you to bring some (substance) and you've repeatedly come up empty. I don't think it's a stretch nor is it being an "amateur psychologist" to say that David Brock's swinging between positions (flamethrowing conservative then flamethrowing-by-proxy [via Media Matters] liberal) bespeaks a oddity of personality, especially when coupled with things like an $850,000 blackmail settlement to keep his former partner quiet. Claiming mea culpa because his politics have shifted does not equal proof of falsification, no matter how readily you believe so. Again, you are bloviating. But keep trying. --MollyTheCat (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I love how a guy who questions my credibility and then use's the right wing rag the Daily Caller as an example of journalistic integrity. It shows me what great standards you have that you rely on a website that outright lied about Bob Menendez paying for hookers in the Dominican Republic. However, sense you never misspell words in your post's that makes your judgment beyond reproach.


 * I realize that your angry that David Brock left your side, but get over it. Once again your assertion that Brock never disputed any facts in the book is just plain wrong. The section dealing with Anita Hill used to be part of the google books preview, are you really claiming I just made up that passage. There's simple way to settle this, go order Blinded by the right from Amazon and then say to me that Brock didn't say what I referenced above.


 * It's funny, if a liberal wrote a book disparaging one of his political enemies and then years later said the book was based on lies and propaganda, I'm pretty sure liberals wouldn't still be referencing that books credibility.annoynmous 02:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Realanasitasshill.jpg
Image:Realanasitasshill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)