Galveston Beached

Galveston Bay made the claim here that:

You accuse him here, where he can make no response or defense. You did not dare do so in the forum, as after all on that website there are consequences for false accusations. 

Let's sort this out, shall we? TFSmith is perfectly welcome to come here and defend the complete rubbish he wrote. There is absolutely nothing preventing him from doing so. If, for whatever reason, he has retired from alternate history, that's no reason we can't discuss his work in his absence. People discuss the work of others in their absence all the time. For instance, on 26 August 2016 Robcrauford described his rifles thesis as his 'final foray into alternate history'. Despite this, on 15 October 2016 we find one Galveston Bay begging TFSmith to disprove the thesis- a futile plea, in light of the lamentable fishing expedition described here. 

Furthermore, when I was temporarily and incorrectly banned from AH.com, Galveston Bay was perfectly prepared to explain to onlookers how I was 'sarcastic,' 'mean spirited,' showed no 'particular willingness to debate,' provided 'facts [which] have been rebutted or questioned frequently and routinely', and was 'hijacking the thread.' How exactly I was to make a 'response or defence' to these accusations, having been banned from the boards, is unclear.

Galveston Bay also points out that 'he [i.e, me] has been ignoring me for two years (EDIT: much of the last year)'. What he fails to recognise is that ignoring someone means you cannot see their posts, and therefore 'can make no response or defence' to them. Did that stop him from replying to my posts during that time? Of course not. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that having the right of response matters only in certain cases- namely, those people who agree with Galveston Bay.

With that first sentence settled, let's move on to the suggestion that we were afraid of the consequences of accusing TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. As it happens, I'm unaware of there actually being any consequences for false accusations on AH.com. For instance, here's TFSmith accusing Robcrauford of being a sockpuppet, an accusation on which he doubled down despite it being demonstrably untrue. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to have counted as one of the nine strikes he accrued in his time on the boards.

Of course, it wasn't the fear of consequences that prevented us from accusing TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. For one thing, Saphroneth and I didn't realise he'd plagiarised text until 22 February 2017, several months after TFSmith's June 2016 banning. Alert readers will note that the very reason we set up this blog (on 23 February 2017) was because you can't discuss the work of banned members on AH.com in the kind of detail we wanted to do. In fact, discussing his timeline on AH.com would actually have denied him the right of response- because, as we all know, a man who makes accusations of sockpuppetry against others would be far too upright to register a sockpuppet himself. 

Despite the limitations on doing so, it's worth noting that Saphroneth actually has, in passing, accused TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. He received no punishment for doing so, because the accusation is true. In fact, TFSmith's reputation as a plagiarist was well-established on AH.com even before he got banned. For instance, here's Calbear warning him for plagiarism and TFSmith admitting it was for ripping off published sources. Galveston Bay may well have missed this, despite posting frequently in the dedicated BROS thread, so it's good to bring it to his attention.

In conclusion, then, all I can say is that if Galveston Bay really wants us to make these criticisms more accessible by posting them on a forum TFSmith will never again be able to contribute to, he should speak to the moderators on our behalf. It seems a little odd that he'd want us to bring our critique to a wider audience at the same time he's trying to have us shut down. Nevertheless, we stand by every criticism made so far: nobody has managed to disprove them, not even Galveston Bay himself.

Petty Officers

Some write alternate history because they wish things were different; others write alternate history as a way of exploring what actually happened. And some write alternate history to spite other people who like alternate history. For instance, the encounter at Block Island we have described previously took place in June 1862, but is placed in a chapter that otherwise takes place in November 1862. There is absolutely no reason for this to be told in flashback- so why was it put here?

Block Headed

As well as featuring the inexplicable death of Captain John Bythesea, chapter 11 part 1 includes some of the bizarre non-Euclidian geography which represents one of the hallmarks of TFSmith's writing. The relevant passage is as follows:

In memoriam

Unfortunately, it falls to me to be the bearer of some very sad news. I've just learned that one of the pillars of our site is no longer with us.

Cornell University's Making of America series, which we've generally used for access to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies and Navies, has been shuttered and transferred to Hathitrust.This is a pretty big blow- not just because almost every existing link in this blog goes to that site, but because it was probably the most user-friendly version of the OR available.

Thanks to my crippling autism, I'll now need to spend some time going through past entries and trying to fix all the broken links as best I can. As such, actual new content may be a little light (at least on my part) for the next few weeks. I haven't worked out which of the alternate versions of the OR would be best to use, so if anybody has a recommendation then let us know in the comments below.

I may also make some other tweaks, such as tagging the articles more systematically. When we set up the site I don't think we were ever expecting to reach nearly 200 articles, and the existing tags may not be as helpful as they could be in finding things. Again, if you've got suggestions for tags that would make your lives easier, then drop them in the comments.

Thanks to everybody who's read and commented over the past few months- and here's to many more!

Knox your Block Off (3)

Having examined the British force at Fort Knox, and the historical precedents that TFSmith uses to justify the loss of British ships there, we now conclude by considering the sinkings themselves.

Knox Your Block Off (2)

We have already seen how TFSmith's depiction of the ships engaged in the attack on Fort Knox does its best to play up their flaws. This fits his main objective of weakening the British, but in reality he needn't have bothered: in BROS the British are perfectly capable of making a complete pig's ear of any endeavour with even the most modern ships.

Knox Your Block Off (1)

Chapter 15, part 1 sees the lengthy recitation of many failed British assaults on the Union's position at Fort Knox in Maine. Fortunately, we only need to look at the first to understand that they are complete nonsense.