The spirit of calumny and slander examin'd, chastised and expos'd : in a letter to a malicious libeller more particularly address'd to Mr. George Ridpath ...
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Have good information from feveral Perfbns of known integrity here at London, that you are the Author of two abufive Pamphlets by which you endeavour to defame our Kinjgs, Parliaments, and Nobles, fuch as we had in Scotland before the le Revolution.Our Kings were perjured Tyrants, and K. Charles IL knew that he himfelf had forfeited his Title to the Crown*i Our Parliaments were but pack d* Conti- Clubs,* company of flavifli Parafites, that contributed all they could to nuat. the ruin of our Liberties,Civiland Religious; and confequently our Nobility can deferve no better Character, who made fo great a Figure in all our Parliaments.As for the Epifcopal Clergy whether Bimopsor Presbyters, you give them fo many names, that it is a wonder you did not think fuch a defpicable company of men below your Notice.The Book which you call your Continuation, raoft of it is levelled againft one particular man ; and when 1 undertake his Defence ( if that be neceflaryj I find that the reading over your book,and tranfcri- bing fo many parts of it was all the toil I was likely to undergo, and tho you call him whom you fancy to be your Adverfary a man of un- governable paffion; yet I muft tell you that he could not but be mad to the laft degree, if he were angry at the names you give him, fince they of the firft quality in Europe, nave no fairer quarter at your hands;A Scribkr. a Pedant, a Hawker, a Villain, an Afs^a n Ignoramus, a Blun* derer, are all ofthem words that he can hear with patience, when his Superiours are not better treated.One may modeftly conclude that you are very angry, and that's a greater punilhment than any of your Adverfaries can inflict upon you.The Author of the Tofifcript to the Apolozy for the Clergy of Scotland, told you already, that he was not at all concerned in that Scuffle between you and your Antagonift, nor is he likely to offer his mediation to end your Debate ; and he is ftill of the opinion, that he can employ his time better than to'read again your Anfwer, or the Book that occafioned it.His Tofifcript is a fliort Epifto- lary account of the firft, or rather a Character of the prefent methods of Fresbytery, in imitation of their Predeceffors, than any particular view of your Book, and I am content that you impute this to his ig- norance or weaknefs or what elfeyou'pleale to call it.It is very odd that you fhould think that you have power to funamon any body to the Prefs when you pleafe, even when you lurk behind the Curtains.You B take '\C 3 ] region written by the * Bifhop of Rochester, and there * A, true Account of you may fee with your own Eyes feveral authentick Ethe horrid Confpiracy a- vidences, upon record, againft C.of C. and I muft tell \'n(t the King , &c.you that Sir George Mackenzie needed not that Gentle-x b EJit % id*?'*' man's Atliftance to re commend him to the prefent Court, if he had been ambitious to -have been a Favorite; and if he told C. of C that 'he had done him an Injury , and begg'd him par- don, how came this Confeffion to be made publick?if he to whom it was firft revealed, under truft, fpread it abroad, he is guilty of fomething that no Gentleman will readily own ; but the plain truth is Sir George Mackenzie never told him any fuch thing, after the manner you reprefent it s and he had very good reafon to exped:that the Witneftes againft C. of C. would judicially depone jn pub- lick, the very lame things that they aflerted in private ; and if you pleafe you may remember that tHbre is a greater difference between Sir George Mackenzie and your felf, than between Mr. Rutherford and thole of our Clergy you trample upon
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".