Thank you, Bhairitu, I think you're right. It is pointless to enter into a disagreement with Judy. It's certainly the case that a few sources do not tell the story of ten years' worth of research into what makes the 20th century tick. And then, even after ten years of research, I cannot say I'm an expert. My expertise lies (double meaning intended) in literary theory and criticism as forms of epistemology and in philosophy of language. I've developed a language teaching methodology (theory and practice) that's light years ahead of the state of the art. I'm also a dynamite cook and seamstress. And I've made a living (not a great living, mind you, but a living) as a practicing artist. I've got the greenest thumb of anyone I know. Plants talk to me. Beyond that I'm as dumb as the next person, and getting dumber year by year.
Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Angela, Judy is just trying to drag you down and make you waste messages on a reply. Just walk away. Many of us here have read or heard the information you cite regarding that WWII was planned (and also a WWIII). I'm not going to waste my time on looking up stuff for someone on the net unless I already have at my fingertips. Sometimes I hear things while I'm driving around listing to Air America Radio like a guest on Thom Hartmann or a guest on Alex Jones (who by the way will often post links to his guest web site or book which sometimes Thom fails to do). Sometimes I get information from books that have to be read in their full context or their claim can be easily shot down. And sometimes I read things years ago (40 or more in some cases) and I won't remember the source but I remember what was said. I, over the years have learned to walk away from trollish flame wars because I feel I have proven my point only going a few replies deep into the topic and those who have minds can see I've done so just by reading the thread. It is not at all about having the last word. Angela Mailander wrote: > Actually, Judy, any idiot can determine which names in a bibliography are > the most "authoritative." Pick up ten books on the same subject, check out > the bibliography, and note which names are repeated, which names are quoted > by everyone who thinks he's got something to say on a given subject. > > And what would it do for you if I named five or six European historians. > Would you then know that I told the truth? I don't think so. > > authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > And what would such a list do for you, or for my credibility, > > since any idiot can copy someone else's bibliography? > > But not any idiot would know which names from > that bibliography are the most authoritative. > > > authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > My bibliography is about twenty-five pages. How much of it > > > do you want? > > > > Oh, let's say five of those you consider the most > > authoritative. > > > > > authfriend <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > A third war was planned all along, according to European > > > > historians. > > > > > > Which historians were these, Angela? > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
