link0 link1 link2 link3 link4 link5 link6 link7 link8 link9 link10 link11 link12 link13 link14 link15 link16 link17 link18 link19 link20 link21 link22 link23 link24 link25 link26 link27 link28 link29 link30 link31 link32 link33 link34 link35 link36 link37 link38 link39 link40 link41 link42 link43 link44 link45 link46 link47 link48 link49 link50 link51 link52 link53 link54 link55 link56 link57 link58 link59 link60 link61 link62 link63 link64 link65 link66 link67 link68 link69 link70 link71 link72 link73 link74 link75 link76 link77 link78 link79 link80 link81 link82 link83 link84 link85 link86 link87 link88 link89 link90 link91 link92 link93 link94 link95 link96 link97 link98 link99 link100 link101 link102 link103 link104 link105 link106 link107 link108 link109 link110 link111 link112 link113 link114 link115 link116 link117 link118 link119

An insulting letter from regarding Nelson Denis’s book

I have received the following letter from an ignorant reader who has written on behalf of, but who does not identify him or herself:


I read with interest your review about Nelson Denis’ WAAPR.

I am always in favor of constructive criticism. Unfortunately, your
comments lacked any positive sentiment whatsoever. Your criticisms also
lacks evidence, and you don’t shy away from insulting everyone who
disagrees with you. All of these anomalies have one thing in common:
they have nothing to do with constructive criticism.

Fortunately, Nelson Denis’ book will have a major impact on pretty much
anyone who will read it. The essence of it’s content is clear,
self-evident and un-refutable.

If I were you, I would feel ashamed for the public ad hominem attack of
such an important piece of literature and an author who has worked
diligently to bring out the truth. If you would have any integrity at
all, you would have disclosed your doubts to him in private. But you
preferred to not contain your envy and you attacked him publicly.
Needless to say that this will happen to you from now onward for the
rest of your life: people will remember your unprofessional public
review of Nelson’s book and they will let you know what they feel/think
about you.

You claim several things in your comment, and not a single one of your
claims is backed up in any way. No wonder why most readers consider your
comments to be envious.

The historical facts surrounding E. Francis Riggs are crystal clear: he
was a violent U.S. nationalist who not only hated Puerto Ricans but
anyone whom he could not control. His career consisted of oppressing,
intimidating, torturing and murdering people – even long before he was
appointed Chief of Police PR in 1933. Rigg’s expected role was to murder
whoever opposed U.S. dictatorship, and his murders in Nicaragua, amongst
other places, made him “qualified” to cause terror in PR. And this is
the person you defend by doubting his saying “WAAPR”?

Although Rigg’s track record perfectly matches the quote, you provide no
evidence that he never uttered the infamous sentence quoted by N. Denis.
Where is your evidence? If anyone doubts your unfounded and
unsubstantiated criticism, you just lash out at them. But if you read
your own comments again, you will find that you didn’t offer a single
proof of any of your claims.

Overall, the tone of your comment is just sour grapes and envy, with
absolutely no positive intent. This is the main message most people will
read whenever they will read your “review” of WAAPR.

What is also disturbing is that you not only offend the author of WAAPR,
you also offend all those free thinkers and historians who DO embrace
the book.

If you would be sincere or professional, you would either publicly
apologize (which I am sure you can’t because your pride won’t allow you
to do so) or you would make a summary of your claims and bring them all
up to the author in private. But you don’t have enough character to do
so, so you lash out in public. Do you ever realize how much arrogance
and envy you have in your heart? How would you feel if people would
start to discredit you in public the way you discredited Nelson Denis
and anyone who considers his book to be excellent?

Contrary to yet another of your false and unethical accusations, some
minor or supposed discrepancies of WAAPR were brought to the attention
of the author, and he indeed publicly mentioned that he would consider
all critiques and make sure to correct whatever may need to be corrected
in his next edition and/or the Spanish version. Although your accusation
is clearly false, and there is recorded public evidence (which you could
find within minutes if you would really care) of Nelson Denis’ open ear
to constructive criticism, you still prefer to not see this truth or
reality. Can’t wake a man who’s pretending to sleep… or determined to
remain unethical and envious!

Although my work of activism is primarily through the medium of
agriculture and I usually avoid political issues by all means, your
comments inspired me to promote Nelson Denis’ book. For that I thank
you. There is no doubt in my mind that this book will have more impact
than any other PR history book ever written, and the more you will spit
at it, the more people will spit at you.


This anonymous person concludes that, because I defend truth by pointing out that E. Francis Riggs didn’t say something that Nelson Denis affirms that he said, I’m thus defending Riggs.

Furthermore, that person insults me for publicly calling the attention of readers to some of the many errors in Denis’s book as is my duty as a historian specialized in some of the aspects the book covers. As a matter of fact, Denis obtained data from some of my books and from those of others who have also pointed out errors publicly.

I abstain from insulting that shy person back ―at least, for the time being― because I’m sure that such behavior is due to stark ignorance. In turn, I rather submit the following pieces of evidence in support of the historical facts regarding Riggs’s actual expressions: