Note |
69.92.22.132 (talk) Reasons given do not follow your plan! |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Mr. Hughes, I want to remind you, [[Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko)]] is '''not''' the place for diatribes on why New Chronology is or isn't "right". It's a discussion page for the article called [[New Chronology (Fomenko)]]. Please treat it as such. I will delete comments (on either side) that don't have anything to do with the state of the article. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
Mr. Hughes, I want to remind you, [[Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko)]] is '''not''' the place for diatribes on why New Chronology is or isn't "right". It's a discussion page for the article called [[New Chronology (Fomenko)]]. Please treat it as such. I will delete comments (on either side) that don't have anything to do with the state of the article. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
Dear Grand Master! Have you read the Fomenko discussion page? You speak of "diatribes!" Why have you not deleted the other "diatribes" found on that same page? Such as; |
|||
"I'm not sure that this argument doesn't essentially refute itself. That said, the article itself is essentially a travesty. A problem is it's hard to find a neutral summary of this garbage - almost all of it is heavy praise by ignorant people. Which makes it hard to say what, precisely, is wrong with it without going into original research. I did remove all the garbage at the beginning about how uncertain traditional historical chronology is. john k 00:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)" |
|||
And; |
|||
"Fomenko doesn't have the right to proclaim documents as "falsified" simply because they don't fit with his theory. The basic points you've outlined simply show that Fomenko (like most similar quacks) is relatively clever in his ability to keep people confused and off-balance when they try to dispute his arguments, because he creates a huge number of tendentious arguments. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)" |
|||
And; |
|||
"How profoundly stupid this idea is. In fact it could only be so, because if it were less outrageous someone with a brain and access to a library might take the time to debunk it. |
|||
Which part is stupid? |
|||
I agree, it is not stupid. It is rather clever. Just astoundingly wrong. And absurd. And dishonest. john k 01:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)" |
|||
So, in the above three quotes from john k, who I presume is John Kenney, he uses the words "garbage", "quacks", "stupid", "absurb" and the claim that Fomenko uses "tendentious arguments!" I could quote several other examples of the use of derogatory comments, like this, that appear to me to be "attacks" and "diatribes" of the worst sort. |
|||
My definition of "diatribe" is "1. a prolonged discourse" and "2. a bitter and abusive speech or writing". While, my first long post might well describe meaning number one, since it was somewhat prolonged, that was because I was trying to present an example,(using sources such as Wiki itself and New Advent and using the sources because your own instructions state that we must use them) as a way to prove (or at least suggest) that there might exist, in the currently accepted chronology and history, some doubt as to its veracity! |
|||
But in none of my posts, including the last one, did I write a "bitter or abusive" article. Now the third meaning of "diatribe" is "ironical or satrical critcism", might be used not only to describe my words, but the words of numerous other posts on the same site. |
|||
Why you allow the following to exist is beyond my comprehension after I have read all of your sites instructions and your remarks directed towards me in particular. |
|||
" have determined through extensive historical, linguistic, forensic, and statistical investigation that Christopher Columbus was actually the Chinese navigator Hu-Go-Fa who discovered America in the year 1107 and that everything between the years 1107 and 1492 is fictitious and meant to confuse the unwary. |
|||
There are two parts to my research. The first is a proof that CC never existed because there is no evidence of an admiral from Genoa during this time period nor is it possible to get to India by sailing to Bermuda (unless you are using the Dendera star chart). The second part is a reconstruction of the life of Hu-Go-Fa and treats of his relationship with the Empress Dowager Ming-Wu who finally agreed to fund his expedition if he would grant her exclusive rights to the story of his adventures. |
|||
Most of my critics, of whom I assume there will be many when my theory hits the tabloid press, will criticize me for failing to tow the line of the accepted faulty notion that the Spanish navy once held Cuba and the Philipines, when everyone knows they were bought by Teddy Roosevelt from the Czar of Russia, Putin the Pretentious. |
|||
The essence of my argument is that only a Chinese navigator would have been close enough to India to know that it couldn't be reached by sailing east and that therefore there must be another land "over there" as he wrote in the record of his journey, "Five Years Among the Damn Savages on the Other Side of the Celestial Rainbow." |
|||
It must be borned (sic: Soviet genuflective extension) in mind that it is impossible to prove that this pretender CC was anything but a member of that conspiratorial group first exposed by great Russian historical expert Ustinov Detanko as called the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sailing Ships and that nothing between 1107 and 1492 can be shown to have been written originally upon bond paper, whose watermark is the only way to determine if it is real or it is Memorex. |
|||
Further, I am convinced, and that is equivalent to absolute proof, that this character Formica is phonier than that stuff they cover countertops with. He actually thinks a pope could be Jesus Christ when everybody knows Jesus Christ was a Gothic Aryan from Moscow. The nerve of him pretending that somebody of name Gregory could be also called Juzu Kristolo, which is obvious form of Latvian band of same name. Whereas my theory is much more precise and statistically valid because it does not assume that Chinese history is only 200 years old. It is proven it is exactly 900 years old including Shang, Wang, and Dang Dynasties, each of which lasted exactly 300 years, since this is the statistical mean. |
|||
There are many elements to my theory that I cannot list here, but I will list the salient ones for your perusal: |
|||
1) Name "Amerika" is obvious corruption of first mate of Hu's ship called Ame Luk in Cantonese dialect. |
|||
2) Obvious oriental cast of Native Inhabitants of Ame Luk-a is result of intermarriage between Chinese colonists and local Caucasian inhabitants. |
|||
3) CC's voyage was followed by many voyages of exploration by Spanish and Portuguese rulers of India in 12th and 13th Centuries. |
|||
4) Presence of so-called "step pyramidals" in Amerika are the result of native copying of Chinese pagodas and temples. |
|||
5) Statistical lists of Chinese emperors of 7th Century show remarkable similarity to presidents of the United Estates. Of particular interest is the presence of the ancient Chinese legend of the chopping down of the World Cherry Tree by the eponymous founder of the great capitol, Wa-Ching-Tun. The seven-year reign lengths of the so-called "US presidents" can be shown to result fromt he Chinese use of aonly odd numbers for divinatory purposes. |
|||
6) Finally, I am right and you are wrong. So go blow. |
|||
--Admiral Frank Francolini, Underground Balloon Corps" |
|||
So, either you apply the rules correctly, and in an un-biased way, you are the one in violation of your own rules! |
|||
Also, I do think that opinions that are blatantly anti-Fomenko, that are penned by writers who actually admit that they have no first hand knowledge of the Fomenko books, and as such should have no educated reason to responed, should not be allowed to post! |
|||
Perhaps my quotation of Schopenhauer hit too close to home? |
|||
Of course this is just my opinion (diatribe!) and I could be wrong? LOL |
|||
Regards, |
|||
Ron Hughes |
Revision as of 18:06, 29 May 2006
Mr. Hughes, I want to remind you, Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko) is not the place for diatribes on why New Chronology is or isn't "right". It's a discussion page for the article called New Chronology (Fomenko). Please treat it as such. I will delete comments (on either side) that don't have anything to do with the state of the article. Grandmasterka 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Grand Master! Have you read the Fomenko discussion page? You speak of "diatribes!" Why have you not deleted the other "diatribes" found on that same page? Such as;
"I'm not sure that this argument doesn't essentially refute itself. That said, the article itself is essentially a travesty. A problem is it's hard to find a neutral summary of this garbage - almost all of it is heavy praise by ignorant people. Which makes it hard to say what, precisely, is wrong with it without going into original research. I did remove all the garbage at the beginning about how uncertain traditional historical chronology is. john k 00:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
And;
"Fomenko doesn't have the right to proclaim documents as "falsified" simply because they don't fit with his theory. The basic points you've outlined simply show that Fomenko (like most similar quacks) is relatively clever in his ability to keep people confused and off-balance when they try to dispute his arguments, because he creates a huge number of tendentious arguments. john k 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
And;
"How profoundly stupid this idea is. In fact it could only be so, because if it were less outrageous someone with a brain and access to a library might take the time to debunk it.
Which part is stupid? I agree, it is not stupid. It is rather clever. Just astoundingly wrong. And absurd. And dishonest. john k 01:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)"
So, in the above three quotes from john k, who I presume is John Kenney, he uses the words "garbage", "quacks", "stupid", "absurb" and the claim that Fomenko uses "tendentious arguments!" I could quote several other examples of the use of derogatory comments, like this, that appear to me to be "attacks" and "diatribes" of the worst sort.
My definition of "diatribe" is "1. a prolonged discourse" and "2. a bitter and abusive speech or writing". While, my first long post might well describe meaning number one, since it was somewhat prolonged, that was because I was trying to present an example,(using sources such as Wiki itself and New Advent and using the sources because your own instructions state that we must use them) as a way to prove (or at least suggest) that there might exist, in the currently accepted chronology and history, some doubt as to its veracity!
But in none of my posts, including the last one, did I write a "bitter or abusive" article. Now the third meaning of "diatribe" is "ironical or satrical critcism", might be used not only to describe my words, but the words of numerous other posts on the same site.
Why you allow the following to exist is beyond my comprehension after I have read all of your sites instructions and your remarks directed towards me in particular.
" have determined through extensive historical, linguistic, forensic, and statistical investigation that Christopher Columbus was actually the Chinese navigator Hu-Go-Fa who discovered America in the year 1107 and that everything between the years 1107 and 1492 is fictitious and meant to confuse the unwary.
There are two parts to my research. The first is a proof that CC never existed because there is no evidence of an admiral from Genoa during this time period nor is it possible to get to India by sailing to Bermuda (unless you are using the Dendera star chart). The second part is a reconstruction of the life of Hu-Go-Fa and treats of his relationship with the Empress Dowager Ming-Wu who finally agreed to fund his expedition if he would grant her exclusive rights to the story of his adventures.
Most of my critics, of whom I assume there will be many when my theory hits the tabloid press, will criticize me for failing to tow the line of the accepted faulty notion that the Spanish navy once held Cuba and the Philipines, when everyone knows they were bought by Teddy Roosevelt from the Czar of Russia, Putin the Pretentious.
The essence of my argument is that only a Chinese navigator would have been close enough to India to know that it couldn't be reached by sailing east and that therefore there must be another land "over there" as he wrote in the record of his journey, "Five Years Among the Damn Savages on the Other Side of the Celestial Rainbow."
It must be borned (sic: Soviet genuflective extension) in mind that it is impossible to prove that this pretender CC was anything but a member of that conspiratorial group first exposed by great Russian historical expert Ustinov Detanko as called the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sailing Ships and that nothing between 1107 and 1492 can be shown to have been written originally upon bond paper, whose watermark is the only way to determine if it is real or it is Memorex.
Further, I am convinced, and that is equivalent to absolute proof, that this character Formica is phonier than that stuff they cover countertops with. He actually thinks a pope could be Jesus Christ when everybody knows Jesus Christ was a Gothic Aryan from Moscow. The nerve of him pretending that somebody of name Gregory could be also called Juzu Kristolo, which is obvious form of Latvian band of same name. Whereas my theory is much more precise and statistically valid because it does not assume that Chinese history is only 200 years old. It is proven it is exactly 900 years old including Shang, Wang, and Dang Dynasties, each of which lasted exactly 300 years, since this is the statistical mean.
There are many elements to my theory that I cannot list here, but I will list the salient ones for your perusal:
1) Name "Amerika" is obvious corruption of first mate of Hu's ship called Ame Luk in Cantonese dialect.
2) Obvious oriental cast of Native Inhabitants of Ame Luk-a is result of intermarriage between Chinese colonists and local Caucasian inhabitants.
3) CC's voyage was followed by many voyages of exploration by Spanish and Portuguese rulers of India in 12th and 13th Centuries.
4) Presence of so-called "step pyramidals" in Amerika are the result of native copying of Chinese pagodas and temples.
5) Statistical lists of Chinese emperors of 7th Century show remarkable similarity to presidents of the United Estates. Of particular interest is the presence of the ancient Chinese legend of the chopping down of the World Cherry Tree by the eponymous founder of the great capitol, Wa-Ching-Tun. The seven-year reign lengths of the so-called "US presidents" can be shown to result fromt he Chinese use of aonly odd numbers for divinatory purposes.
6) Finally, I am right and you are wrong. So go blow.
--Admiral Frank Francolini, Underground Balloon Corps"
So, either you apply the rules correctly, and in an un-biased way, you are the one in violation of your own rules!
Also, I do think that opinions that are blatantly anti-Fomenko, that are penned by writers who actually admit that they have no first hand knowledge of the Fomenko books, and as such should have no educated reason to responed, should not be allowed to post!
Perhaps my quotation of Schopenhauer hit too close to home?
Of course this is just my opinion (diatribe!) and I could be wrong? LOL
Regards,
Ron Hughes