oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 12:09:50 GMT
Here's one you may of heard of... This is a quote from Holdings book. "Thomas Eddison invented a light bulb with a paper filament,it lit up the room for sure ,but it burnt out by the time you fooled your fingers." "The man that invented the carbon filament that burnt and burnt,allowing us to have lightbulb for years and years,was Lewis Hamilton Latimar." "In 1882 Latimar recieved the patent for that carbon filament." "He literally lit up our homes and streets". This is untrue. Latimar did not invent the carbon filament for light bulbs. In England Joseph Swan was granted a patent lightbulb with a catbon filament in 1860. In America Eddison was given a patent for lightbulb with a carbon filament in 1879. Check it out. Eddison light bulbs did not only burn for seconds ,but for 1200 hours.In 1860 a steamship was fitted with electric lights of this design and by 1881 they were being used in buildings as well. Latimar did not invent the carbon filament for light bulbs. What he did do was come up with a way of producing filaments in difference shapes.His patent for that was granted 1882 3 years after Eddisons. Page reference please |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 12:10:15 GMT
I think Oldie just wants the exact reference from Michael Holding - so we can analyse it. You might well be right on this particular one Bas. I don't necessarily think that history is being re-written. Rather there are revisionist opinions about historical events. The events themselves are fact. Example. I remember reading a ladybird book about the Crusades as a child. How Christians bravely fought wars in the Holy Land and re-took Jerusalem. I've read quite a bit about the Crusades since then and that part of our history has substantially been revised. Pretty sure that ladybird book does not exist in the same form now. Nothing glorious about the Crusades at all. Though to be fair it was the French / Catholic church that were the main culprits for the mass murders. Epping This misperception can be at the heart of the debate. You claim "that part of our history has substantially been revised" No it hasn't. Nobody can revise an historical fact. The truth is we never taught our kids the truth, we taught them nationalist fairy stories. Now those stories are being challenged and, as we can see with Basel, this upsets some people. "Nationalistfairy tales" Examples please. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 12:11:53 GMT
Here's one you may of heard of... This is a quote from Holdings book,Why We Kneel,How We Rise . "Thomas Eddison invented a light bulb with a paper filament,it lit up the room for sure ,but it burnt out by the time you clicked your fingers." "The man that invented the carbon filament that burnt and burnt,allowing us to have lightbulb for years and years,was Lewis Hamilton Latimar." "In 1882 Latimar recieved the patent for that carbon filament." "He literally lit up our homes and streets". This is untrue. Latimar did not invent the carbon filament for light bulbs. In England Joseph Swan was granted a patent lightbulb with a catbon filament in 1860. In America Eddison was given a patent for lightbulb with a carbon filament in 1879. Check it out. Eddison light bulbs did not only burn for seconds ,but for 1200 hours.In 1860 a steamship was fitted with electric lights of this design and by 1881 they were being used in buildings as well. Latimar did not invent the carbon filament for light bulbs. What he did do was come up with a way of producing filaments in difference shapes.His patent for that was granted 1882 3 years after Eddisons. Page reference please Why do you want a page if you hav'nt got the book? Just do abit of research and check it out. Hopefully Holdings book will get withdrawn from sale. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 12:22:03 GMT
TWD says " If Bas believes that people are incorrect or being dishonest he's right to flag that up." Of course, but having said it, then it is for him to show why he believes this to be true. Not run away when challenged, screaming "censorship" So Basel...over to you If you want to drag conversations backwards I have a very long list of things that you've refused to reply to when you've been cornered. Do you want to go down this path? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 12:28:06 GMT
Epping This misperception can be at the heart of the debate. You claim "that part of our history has substantially been revised" No it hasn't. Nobody can revise an historical fact. The truth is we never taught our kids the truth, we taught them nationalist fairy stories. Now those stories are being challenged and, as we can see with Basel, this upsets some people. "Nationalistfairy tales" Examples please. The written history of our (British) imperialist period, 1700 to 1939. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 12:30:10 GMT
Why do you want a page if you hav'nt got the book? Just do abit of research and check it out. Hopefully Holdings book will get withdrawn from sale. You are quoting his book which you own and have read (I presume). So, just reference me the page you have taken your quote from, please. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 12:34:21 GMT
Why do you want a page if you hav'nt got the book? Just do abit of research and check it out. Hopefully Holdings book will get withdrawn from sale. You are quoting his book which you own and have read (I presume). So, just reference me the page you have taken your quote from, please. What I quoted page 190. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 12:39:23 GMT
"Nationalistfairy tales" Examples please. The written history of our (British) imperialist period, 1700 to 1939. Does it have an author? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 12:42:43 GMT
The written history of our (British) imperialist period, 1700 to 1939. Does it have an author? A multitude. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 13:04:20 GMT
You are quoting his book which you own and have read (I presume). So, just reference me the page you have taken your quote from, please. What I quoted page 190. So here is the rub. I do not believe that you actually went out and bought Michael Holding's book "Why we kneel, How we rise" Why would you buy a book which you openly advocate should be withdrawn? |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 6,544 
|
Post by eppinggas on Nov 7, 2021 13:18:05 GMT
I think Oldie just wants the exact reference from Michael Holding - so we can analyse it. You might well be right on this particular one Bas. I don't necessarily think that history is being re-written. Rather there are revisionist opinions about historical events. The events themselves are fact. Example. I remember reading a ladybird book about the Crusades as a child. How Christians bravely fought wars in the Holy Land and re-took Jerusalem. I've read quite a bit about the Crusades since then and that part of our history has substantially been revised. Pretty sure that ladybird book does not exist in the same form now. Nothing glorious about the Crusades at all. Though to be fair it was the French / Catholic church that were the main culprits for the mass murders. Epping This misperception can be at the heart of the debate. You claim "that part of our history has substantially been revised" No it hasn't. Nobody can revise an historical fact. The truth is we never taught our kids the truth, we taught them nationalist fairy stories. Now those stories are being challenged and, as we can see with Basel, this upsets some people. Apologies oldie - my bad english. I think we are on the same page here. Let me have another go: "that part of our history has been researched and analysed and now a different, less appealing interpretation of those events is now considered to be a more accurate". The perception has been revised. The Crusades happened. Fact. We were taught 40 years ago that they were a glorious part of our history. Due to revisionism it is now generally accepted that they were something somewhat less than glorious. I'm OK with that, and I think you are to. And so probably is Bas. Other historical 'revisions' are not so clear cut IMHO. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 13:35:51 GMT
Epping This misperception can be at the heart of the debate. You claim "that part of our history has substantially been revised" No it hasn't. Nobody can revise an historical fact. The truth is we never taught our kids the truth, we taught them nationalist fairy stories. Now those stories are being challenged and, as we can see with Basel, this upsets some people. Apologies oldie - my bad english. I think we are on the same page here. Let me have another go: "that part of our history has been researched and analysed and now a different, less appealing interpretation of those events is now considered to be a more accurate". The perception has been revised. The Crusades happened. Fact. We were taught 40 years ago that they were a glorious part of our history. Due to revisionism it is now generally accepted that they were something somewhat less than glorious. I'm OK with that, and I think you are to. And so probably is Bas. Other historical 'revisions' are not so clear cut IMHO. I know, but good that you said it. Moving on from the Crusades, time to revise the "taught" history of our Imperial period post 1700. All things come to pass, eventually. I doubt it with Basel, btw. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 13:48:14 GMT
So here is the rub. I do not believe that you actually went out and bought Michael Holding's book "Why we kneel, How we rise" Why would you buy a book which you openly advocate should be withdrawn? Yet again, this is why you are like a stuck record and can't see anything other than your point of view. Normal people read widely. If you don't read opposing points of view you will end up stuck in a rut of ideological bigoted thinking. Sound like anybody whose just come back to this forum and absolutely refuses to read links or to adjust his point of view, and has never, ever, not even once said that he was wrong about anything? Often when you look at what appear to be opposing opinions you realise that they aren't that at all and that you agree but are expressing the same thought in different ways. Read more, you'll grow as a person. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 13:52:26 GMT
So here is the rub. I do not believe that you actually went out and bought Michael Holding's book "Why we kneel, How we rise" Why would you buy a book which you openly advocate should be withdrawn? I only know of some of the nonsense bits of Holdings book. Now i've done my bit - I can provide more evidence the book is rubbish - but you hav'nt addressed it. Shall I move onto the black Roman Emporor eg? In the scenario your answer is, look how naughty our British Empire was (yes,we know) and Michael Holding is as good as serious historians,then I'll be off. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by oldie on Nov 7, 2021 14:02:09 GMT
So here is the rub. I do not believe that you actually went out and bought Michael Holding's book "Why we kneel, How we rise" Why would you buy a book which you openly advocate should be withdrawn? I only know of some of the nonsense bits of Holdings book. Now i've done my bit - I can provide more evidence the book is rubbish - but you hav'nt addressed it. Shall I move onto the black Roman Emporor eg? In the scenario your answer is, look how naughty our British Empire was (yes,we know) and Michael Holding is as good as serious historians,then I'll be off. Thank you for confirming that you have never bought the book, never read it. From that we can come to a fairly accurate conclusion of what you are about. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 14:20:44 GMT
I only know of some of the nonsense bits of Holdings book. Now i've done my bit - I can provide more evidence the book is rubbish - but you hav'nt addressed it. Shall I move onto the black Roman Emporor eg? In the scenario your answer is, look how naughty our British Empire was (yes,we know) and Michael Holding is as good as serious historians,then I'll be off. Thank you for confirming that you have never bought the book, never read it. From that we can come to a fairly accurate conclusion of what you are about. I've quoted you one 'episode'. You still have no intention of looking in to it. What a waste of time. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 14:23:46 GMT
Here's one you may of heard of... This is a quote from Holdings book. "Thomas Eddison invented a light bulb with a paper filament,it lit up the room for sure ,but it burnt out by the time you flicked your fingers." "The man that invented the carbon filament that burnt and burnt,allowing us to have lightbulb for years and years,was Lewis Hamilton Latimar." "In 1882 Latimar recieved the patent for that carbon filament." "He literally lit up our homes and streets". This is untrue. Latimar did not invent the carbon filament for light bulbs. In England Joseph Swan was granted a patent lightbulb with a catbon filament in 1860. In America Eddison was given a patent for lightbulb with a carbon filament in 1879. Check it out. Eddison light bulbs did not only burn for seconds ,but for 1200 hours.In 1860 a steamship was fitted with electric lights of this design and by 1881 they were being used in buildings as well. Latimar did not invent the carbon filament for light bulbs. What he did do was come up with a way of producing filaments in difference shapes.His patent for that was granted 1882 3 years after Eddisons. Not good enough for Oldie. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 14:59:49 GMT
Thank you for confirming that you have never bought the book, never read it. From that we can come to a fairly accurate conclusion of what you are about. I've quoted you one 'episode'. You still have no intention of looking in to it. What a waste of time. He's a complete waste of time and effort Bas. You are able to quote relevant sections to support what you are saying, you answered his question. He's like that idiot James O'Brien, ignore everything and just look for a 'gotchya' moment, which is normally based on wilful misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what's been said, then knock all of the chess pieces over and declare himself the winner. Note how he ignores anything difficult about whether he reads around subjects, that's because I've demonstrated multiple times in the past that he doesn't. |
|
baselswh
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 2,578
Member is Online
|
Post by baselswh on Nov 7, 2021 15:03:37 GMT
I've quoted you one 'episode'. You still have no intention of looking in to it. What a waste of time. He's a complete waste of time and effort Bas. You are able to quote relevant sections to support what you are saying, you answered his question. He's like that idiot James O'Brien, ignore everything and just look for a 'gotchya' moment, which is normally based on wilful misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what's been said, then knock all of the chess pieces over and declare himself the winner. Note how he ignores anything difficult about whether he reads around subjects, that's because I've demonstrated multiple times in the past that he doesn't. Agreed with all of that TWD. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2021 15:08:20 GMT
He's a complete waste of time and effort Bas. You are able to quote relevant sections to support what you are saying, you answered his question. He's like that idiot James O'Brien, ignore everything and just look for a 'gotchya' moment, which is normally based on wilful misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what's been said, then knock all of the chess pieces over and declare himself the winner. Note how he ignores anything difficult about whether he reads around subjects, that's because I've demonstrated multiple times in the past that he doesn't. Agreed with all of that TWD. Do you notice as well that there's never any content to his posts, all he ever does is point fingers and make accusations at others. |
|
