Fallible wrote:My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.

Fallible wrote:Mine was a history lecturer. He inhabited an old building on top of the hill on campus, with other similarly sartorially challenged individuals in the History department. We called it the Kremlin.

Sendraks wrote:Quoting wikipedia and forming rational opinion are two completely different things.

Your posts neatly demonstrate that no amount of wikipedia quoting is going to help you form rational opinions. Thinking critically and rationally is a skill, separate from just quoting evidence. If you can't think rationally or critically, then no amount of evidence you quote is necessarily going to help you form rational views, especially if you are unwilling to challenge your confirmation bias.

Nevets wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You still don't understand how the burden of proof works or that wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone at any time. Thats what makes it unreliable, not how much of it is accurate.

More importantly, as has been repeatedly to you:

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 1. 9,9 out of 10 times the quotes you post don't state what you claim they do, more often the opposite in fact.

1. 9,9 out of 10 times the quotes you post don't state what you claim they do, more often the opposite in fact.

In a court of law you would need to provide "proof" that 9.9 of everything that i post does not say, what i say it does. Rather than simply "claiming that".. Show me the research method you used, to calculate that 99% of my opinion is based upon misunderstanding what the wikipedia article says.

Thomas Eshuis wrote: 2. You jump to conclusions that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles you quote.

Rather than simply "saying" i jump to conclusion that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles i quote, you would need to show examples. And if you wish to drop my accuracy percentage down, you would also require providing more than one example, to show that this is a consistant pattern

Nevets wrote:Rather than simply "saying" i jump to conclusion that are not in the least warranted by the wiki articles i quote, you would need to show examples.

Spearthrower wrote:But hey, in for a penny eh?

Let's just show some random ones:

The problem for you is how easy this is. I am going to just click on a random page number of your posts, and I can almost guarantee I'll find a perfect example.

Nevets @ William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Nevets wrote:
The Norman invasion really only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings, When William the Conqueror became First Norman King of England

William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

Your argument is that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the Battle of Hastings, and then you cite a source that tells us who William the Conqueror was but doesn't show that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings.


Nevets @ ADL Tabatabai & the Prophet Muhhamad & David Icke godhead

Nevets wrote:
I never ever said Saladin invaded Turkey.

Mehmed the conqueror did, when he collapsed what was left of the Roman empire, and declared himself first Roman Emperor.

Mehmed II (Ottoman Turkish: محمد ثانى‎, romanized: Meḥmed-i sānī; Modern Turkish: II. Mehmet Turkish pronunciation: [ˈikindʒi mehmet]; 30 March 1432 – 3 May 1481), commonly known as Mehmed the Conqueror (Turkish: Fatih Sultan Mehmet), was an Ottoman Sultan who ruled from August 1444 to September 1446, and then later from February 1451 to May 1481. In Mehmed II's first reign, he defeated the crusade led by John Hunyadi after the Hungarian incursions into his country broke the conditions of the truce Peace of Szeged. When Mehmed II ascended the throne again in 1451 he strengthened the Ottoman navy and made preparations to attack Constantinople.

At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire. After the conquest Mehmed claimed the title "Caesar" of the Roman Empire (Qayser-i Rûm), based on the assertion that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the Roman Empire. The claim was only recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

Your claim is that Mehmet invaded Turkey; your source says nothing at all about Mehmet invading Turkey. Obviously, we can read past the anachronism there to the Turkish beyliks, but the point is that Mehmet was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire which even then incorporated most of modern Turkey - he was "Turkey" so why would he be invading it?


Nevets @ ADL Tabatabai & the Prophet Muhhamad & David Icke godhead

This one was hilariously confused.

First you'd mistaken Mehmet for Saladin, then you claimed as above that Mehmet invaded Turkey, then when I pointed out that Mehmet didn't invade Turkey being Turkish himself, you responded with this:

Nevets wrote:
Nothing to do with it? What, do you think Muhammad just woke up one day in Medina, raided a caravan and decided to head straight for Turkey? No, the Holy lands came first

Saladin (/ˈsælədɪn/; 1137 – 4 March 1193), was the first sultan of Egypt and Syria[4] and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty. A Sunni Muslim of Kurdish ethnicity,[5][6][7] Saladin led the Muslim military campaign against the Crusader states in the Levant. At the height of his power, his sultanate included Egypt, Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, the Hejaz, Yemen and other parts of North Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

So even though we were talking about Mehmet and you were supposedly explaining to me why it's relevant, you launch off into talking about what Mohammed did (800 years prior to Mehmet in a different part of the Middle East and from an entirely different ethnicity), then you provide a citation to Saladin... ... sorry, it's still amusing... Saladin being 500 years after Mohammed, and 250 years prior to Mehmet, so what on Earth is the citation meant to have any relevance to?


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2736263

Nevets wrote:
What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is? He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.
Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

was King of Wessex from 871 to c.  886 and King of the Anglo-Saxons from c.  886 to 899. He was the youngest son of King Æthelwulf of Wessex. His father died when he was young and three of Alfred's brothers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

Your argument is that Alfred the Great was the first Anglo-Saxon King to lay claim to being King of England. You then cite your Wikipedia one-liner which contains absolutely nothing whatsoever about Alfred the Great claiming to be King of England - all that's there is a basic one line entry saying 'Alfred the Great is this dude' - and if anything, it says that Alfred was "King of Wessex" and "King of the Anglo-Saxons", so it offers no support at all.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2736274

Nevets wrote:
and we have "already" covered on a different thread, how the Carolingians were among the first barbarians to pledge loyalty to the Papal, through Clovis I

Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)

Your claim is that Clovis I pledged loyalty to the Pope (actually, you misused the term "Papal" again), whereas the source you offered to support that claim says that he allied the Pope. Pledging loyalty would make him subordinate to the Pope, whereas an alliance is not one of subordination.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2736139

Nevets wrote:The Norman conquest did not happen overnight.
They first had to remove the previous incubants, of Vikings, that were "Pagan".

Æthelstan encountered resistance in Wessex for several months, and was not crowned until September 925. In 927 he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelstan

Your claims is that the Norman Conquest had to remove 'incubants' - presumably you mean 'incumbent' pagan Vikings - whereas you offer a source talking about Aethelstan defeating the last remaining Viking Kingdom which occurred in 927, which is 139 years prior to the Norman Invasion.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2736161

Nevets wrote:Whilst i am being accused by Spearthrower, of misrepresenting Spearthrower.

I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England, and that specifically includes Harold Godwinson... and yet your Wikipedia citation quite specifically says that Harold Godwinson was King of England.


The same exact point reiterated but with an amusing twist:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2736177

Nevets wrote:
Even though the link below i show you, does say "anglo-saxon king of England", i have already shown you, that when you look deeper, you find that there was never an anglo-saxon known as anything else other than King of the English

Harold Godwinson (c. 1022 – 14 October 1066), often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?


Honestly, I could go on and on - every page of your threads contains multiple examples of you doing this.

Fallible wrote:My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.

Hermit wrote:

One recent glaring example is your claim that the Norse had to be tough travellers because they come from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC. Indeed, the Wikipedia provides references to the existence of the Norse, and it provides links to the Hamburg culture. What it does not provide, neither directly nor indirectly, is a link between the two, or how a connection between two types of societies that are 15,000 years apart could even be meaningful. This is the sort of stuff that springs out of your imagination, not the Wikipedia. And you keep doing this sort of thing again and again.

The first inhabitants were the Ahrensburg culture (11th to 10th millennia BC), which was a late Upper Paleolithic culture during the Younger Dryas, the last period of cold at the end of the Weichselian glaciation. The culture is named after the village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (15.53 mi) north-east of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where wooden arrow shafts and clubs have been excavated.[49] The earliest traces of human occupation in Norway are found along the coast, where the huge ice shelf of the last ice age first melted between 11,000 and 8,000 BC. The oldest finds are stone tools dating from 9,500 to 6,000 BC, discovered in Finnmark (Komsa culture) in the north and Rogaland (Fosna culture) in the south-west. However, theories about two altogether different cultures (the Komsa culture north of the Arctic Circle being one and the Fosna culture from Trøndelag to Oslofjord being the other) were rendered obsolete in the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Prehistory

The Ahrensburg culture or Ahrensburgian (c. 12,900 to 11,700 BP[1]) was a late Upper Paleolithic nomadic hunter culture (or technocomplex) in north-central Europe during the Younger Dryas, the last spell of cold at the end of the Weichsel glaciation resulting in deforestation and the formation of a tundra with bushy arctic white birch and rowan. The most important prey was the wild reindeer. The earliest definite finds of arrow and bow date to this culture, though these weapons might have been invented earlier. The Ahrensburgian was preceded by the Hamburg and Federmesser cultures and superseded by the Maglemosian and Swiderian cultures. Ahrensburgian finds were made in southern and western Scandinavia, the North German plain and western Poland. The Ahrensburgian area also included vast stretches of land now at the bottom of the North and Baltic Sea, since during the Younger Dryas the coastline took a much more northern course than today.

The culture is named after a tunnel valley near the village of Ahrensburg, 25 km (16 mi) northeast of Hamburg in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where Ahrensburg find layers were excavated in Meiendorf, Stellmoor and Borneck. While these as well as the majority of other find sites date to the Young Dryas, the Ahrensburgian find layer in Alt Duvenstedt has been dated to the very late Allerød, thus possibly representing an early stage of Ahrensburgian which might have corresponded to the Bromme culture in the north. Artefacts with tanged points are found associated with both the Bromme and the Ahrensburg cultures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrensburg_culture

Fallible wrote:My favourite times were those when the lecturer would give you a list of indispensable books, central to his whole course, which you must buy, and which only later were discovered to have been out of print for a number of years. Then, when the lecturer was told this, he simply declared that it made no difference, and that he still expected you to find copies.

Nevets wrote:

Hermit wrote:

One recent glaring example is your claim that the Norse had to be tough travellers because they come from the "The Hamburg culture", created around 15,500BC. Indeed, the Wikipedia provides references to the existence of the Norse, and it provides links to the Hamburg culture. What it does not provide, neither directly nor indirectly, is a link between the two, or how a connection between two types of societies that are 15,000 years apart could even be meaningful. This is the sort of stuff that springs out of your imagination, not the Wikipedia. And you keep doing this sort of thing again and again.

Sorry, but this is because you do not read the articles i link too.
Lets take a look shall we.

[Snip]

Spearthrower wrote:Your argument is that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the Battle of Hastings, and then you cite a source that tells us who William the Conqueror was but doesn't show that the term 'Norman Invasion' only pertains to the time around the battle of Hastings.

Spearthrower wrote:I never ever said Saladin invaded Turkey.

Mehmed the conqueror did, when he collapsed what was left of the Roman empire, and declared himself first Roman Emperor.

Your claim is that Mehmet invaded Turkey; your source says nothing at all about Mehmet invading Turkey. Obviously, we can read past the anachronism there to the Turkish beyliks, but the point is that Mehmet was the ruler of the Ottoman Empire which even then incorporated most of modern Turkey - he was "Turkey" so why would he be invading it?

Spearthrower wrote:This one was hilariously confused.

First you'd mistaken Mehmet for Saladin, then you claimed as above that Mehmet invaded Turkey, then when I pointed out that Mehmet didn't invade Turkey being Turkish himself, you responded with this:

So even though we were talking about Mehmet and you were supposedly explaining to me why it's relevant, you launch off into talking about what Mohammed did (800 years prior to Mehmet in a different part of the Middle East and from an entirely different ethnicity), then you provide a citation to Saladin... ... sorry, it's still amusing... Saladin being 500 years after Mohammed, and 250 years prior to Mehmet, so what on Earth is the citation meant to have any relevance to?

Spearthrower wrote:What is important, is, what is the big deal about Aethelstane is? He was not even the first anglo-saxon to lay "claim" to being King of England.
Alfred the Great was, so why are you using Aethelstane and not Alfred the Great?

Your argument is that Alfred the Great was the first Anglo-Saxon King to lay claim to being King of England. You then cite your Wikipedia one-liner which contains absolutely nothing whatsoever about Alfred the Great claiming to be King of England - all that's there is a basic one line entry saying 'Alfred the Great is this dude' - and if anything, it says that Alfred was "King of Wessex" and "King of the Anglo-Saxons", so it offers no support at all.

This list of kings and queens of the Kingdom of England begins with Alfred the Great, who initially ruled Wessex, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs

Spearthrower wrote:Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nica ... %80%931054)

Spearthrower wrote:Your claim is that Clovis I pledged loyalty to the Pope (actually, you misused the term "Papal" again), whereas the source you offered to support that claim says that he allied the Pope. Pledging loyalty would make him subordinate to the Pope, whereas an alliance is not one of subordination.

I could not really care. Maybe you care about dwelling on whether Clovis I relationship with the Pope should be classed as Loyalty, or simply alliance, but i dont. I am more concerned with the fact that Barbarians are beginning to become Catholicised, just like Alfred the Great did, and a Holy Roman Empire is being built, consisting of the Papal states.

Spearthrower wrote:Your claims is that the Norman Conquest had to remove 'incubants' - presumably you mean 'incumbent' pagan Vikings - whereas you offer a source talking about Aethelstan defeating the last remaining Viking Kingdom which occurred in 927, which is 139 years prior to the Norman Invasion.

But according to your first post, which i let you off with, Aethelstan was 400 years before the Norman conquest. You then removed it and changed it to 100 years. And now its 139 years. I dont even know why you care so much about how many years it was, or what the name of the invasion was. I could not care. Catholics are Catholicising England. That is what i care about.

Spearthrower wrote:I am also being misrepresented.

He is going around the entire forum, "highlighting" in black ink, my error that William the conqueror was first king of England, whilst at the sametime not realising, that William the conqueror probably was the first King of England, because those before him, including Harold Godwinson, who William the conquror defeated, was only king of the anglo-saxons

often called Harold II, was the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Godwinson

You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England, and that specifically includes Harold Godwinson... and yet your Wikipedia citation quite specifically says that Harold Godwinson was King of England

But you attribute words to me that i did not say. You said "You cite a Wikipedia entry to support your argument that no one before William was King of England".
But.. I did not say that. Here is what i said "William the conqueror probably was the first King of England". Do you see the bit thaat says "probably was"...? That is really important. It is not the samething as saying "no one before William was".. it means "entirely" different things. But i am glad you are able to tell me...what my claims are...
Your claim is....

Spearthrower wrote:Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?


Honestly, I could go on and on - every page of your threads contains multiple examples of you doing this.

But it had already been established earlier that there was no anglo saxon kings of England. The anglo-saxon Kings were referred to as "Kings of the English". This has "already been established", so i have no reason to keep repeating it.

The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

I just assume you know that this has already been established. And when modern day historians refer to England of before 1066, they refer to England as England, even though it was actually "Engla Londe". I tried to make you aware of this about ten times, but you seemed unable to grasp the concept.

The earliest recorded use of the term, as "Engla londe", is in the late-ninth-century translation into Old English of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#Toponymy

Nevets wrote:Good night.

Spearthrower wrote:Nevets
Name: steven gall
Posts: 276
Country: United Kingdom

Nevets wrote:Good night.

Posted at 6:15 am in the UK.

Spearthrower wrote:
Here you elect to cite a Wikipedia entry to support your claim that there were no Anglo-Saxon kings of England, but even you see that the citation expressly contradicts you stating exactly the opposite of your claim... so why would you even cite that when it contradicts you?

Nevets wrote

The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Cnut was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

1Athelstan was king of Wessex and the first king of all England.

Spearthrower wrote:

As you say: this is knowledge a child might be expected to have.