| NoMoreChess 2004-09-28, 6:49 am |
| ..
In one of his typical "defenses" against purported "trolling," Nick-the-liar
Burbaki evades several key issues while remaining content to berate Larry Parr
for a couple of irrelevant slip-ups:
quote:
theory').
Larry Parr pointed out (or at least, tried to) that the above "conspiracy
theory" deserves a bit more respect, since it has been adopted by certain
"historians," unfortunately giving a name not among Nick Bourbaki's alleged
close contacts in the world of "academia."
[vbcol=seagreen]
To which, Nick snapped:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>'Toland is a major historian'? Only to the more historically ignorant
>readers.
>John Toland (who died on 4 January 2004) was a popular writer of books on
>some historical subjects, but he was *not* considered a 'major historian', if
he
quote:
>was even considered a historian, by academic historians on those subjects.
It is difficult from the above to ascertain whether Nick-the-liar is issuing
a denial, or
just trying to shoot-down the specific example chosen by Larry Parr as a poor
choice.
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Gore Vidal is known as a writer of fiction.
I submit that the above dismissal amounts to a clear implication by Bourbaki
that Gore Vidal wrote nothing but fiction, including The Golden Age. Of
course, Nick will deny that any such implication exists, just as he always
does. What a fine politician he would make!
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
Why? Was he supposed to be in an underground bunker, waiting for the bombing
to begin, "on schedule"?
[vbcol=seagreen]
>H.P. Willmott has written that there was an organised cover-up to protect
>George C. Marshall's reputation. But H.P. Willmott does *not* believe the
>'conspiracy theory' that Larry Parr seems to believe is probably true.
Was Willmott very close to Roosevelt? Or perhaps he is well-known for never
being wrong, about anything? Those would seem to be good qualifications for
giving his opinion on this matter a lot of weight.
quote:
>My post was written as a general comment on the 'common enough' "belief in
>'conspiracy theories' in the United States".
Nick Bourbaki seems to believe that he always knows what "most Americans"
think and do, under every circumstance. A sort of mass mind-reader, or
super-psychic.
But that's not what bothers me, since in many cases, he has been correct,
IMO. What bothers me, is the stirring and mixing of individuals, their
varying opinions and behaviors, into a single, homogenized vat of "most
Americans," to then be sold and marketted under the generic idea "Nick's
despised, uneducated, racist Ameicans."
quote:
>'I am fond of history, and am very well contented to take the false
>with the true.'
"History is bunk."
|