Pope sends direct message to Ben

[kentonio]

Ken, the next time you feel inclined to argue with BK, go yell at your dog for digging in the trash instead. The dog won't stop misbehaving any more than BK will, but it will at least pretend to be sorry, and generally act more personable. Also, the rest of us won't have to deal with it.

When it's history based it's useful to me, because it usually results in me digging into the research again which refreshes a lot of stuff for me.

Also, you can't really complain about Ben posts in a thread with Ben in the title.

[Ben Kenobi]

a book review on a catholic website is not a citation. you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support any of your ridiculous claims and assertions.

Again, I supplied a citation. That the citation is being dismissed off hand for being 'catholic', is simply evidence of bias. Why - if you are unable to accept Catholic evidence, should I accept evidence presented from COE reverends?

[molly bloom]

The problem is that my thesis contradicts what you've been taught, which is why you and him are both attacking me relentlessly.

.

Your 'THESIS ' ?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh ahahahahah


Oh thanks for that. I laughed last night watching 'Kentucky Fried Movie', but that was even better.

Nobody associates pretentiousness with you.

And to think you had the gall to write that.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Why? Both you and Molly automatically assume bias because of Catholicism.

No. I assume you are biased, because you provide clear indisputable evidence for this repeatedly.

You inflate and concoct figures for deaths attributed to Protestant Tudor rulers with long reigns yet repeatedly play down deaths attributable to the religious policy of Mary Tudor in her happily brief reign.

You deliberately confuse the figures for executions for treason (because of rebellion) and not heresy in Henry VIII's reign and Elizabeth I's reign with those meted out solely for heresy.

That's not history or lack of bias- it's propaganda. If you're not a Plantagenet claimant to the throne of England then we are forced to conclude the reason for this imbalance and bias is your repeatedly announced conversion to Roman Catholicism, and nothing else.

[kentonio]

Again, I supplied a citation. That the citation is being dismissed off hand for being 'catholic', is simply evidence of bias. Why - if you are unable to accept Catholic evidence, should I accept evidence presented from COE reverends?

It was dismissed because it would have meant that something like 3% of the entire population of England at the time had been executed without any evidence of any sort to support that, you muppet.

[C0ckney]

Again, I supplied a citation. That the citation is being dismissed off hand for being 'catholic', is simply evidence of bias. Why - if you are unable to accept Catholic evidence, should I accept evidence presented from COE reverends?

again, no you didn't.

you linked to a book review, where the author asserted that henry VIII had 70,000 executed. what is that evidence of? it's not evidence that henry VIII had 70,000 people executed. it is merely evidence that someone thinks that he did. in the same way that this thread is evidence that some idiot, you, believes that he had 75,000 people executed. so all you have proven is that someone believes that henry VIII had 5,000 fewer people executed than you believe he had. you have shown nothing about the actual number of people he had executed, which is well known and which molly and i have given to you several times.

[Elok]

Dude, Molly's right here. You can argue about history with somebody honest who actually knows something about it. If it goes on long enough, you might get BFB in on the action too. As it is, you're just going over the same territory with BK over and over again; it's like a really crappy, run-down game of whack-a-mole where the mole only ever comes out one hole, takes multiple hits to go back down, and whines at you for your intolerance the whole time.

[Ben Kenobi]

If he were a qualified historian, I'd read the book. Then I'd be able to tell if he'd written a biased account.

Eamon Duffy is a credentialed historian, a professor at Cambridge.

You haven't read the book, so this is your pathetic attempt at covering up your ignorance of the period in question and this book in particular.

Quite the opposite. It is a citation that backs up my claim. Now I suggest you either acknowledge the citation and we can proceed.

And don't assume you can read my mind, because you can't- I have several books by Antonia Fraser and Thomas Pakenham, as well as Irish Roman Catholics. I don't automatically assume that a published writer's religion or politics makes them unreliable.

Yes, Antonia Fraser who's published books assuaging folks that Cromwell was a perfectly pleasant chap. I'm sure you found her books palatable.

Which is why you persistantly exhibit prejudice towards Catholicism here.
In your case the bias is too obvious to hide.

Fortune telling again, and incorrect.

You've constantly castigated the Church for whitewashing. So yes, hardly 'fortunetelling', and merely taking you at your word.

You're making assumptions and statements without any evidence to back them up.

Right - like it's difficult to assert that Molly Bloom hates Catholicism!

Because he's a historian ? Because he's an expert on the subject ? Because he's written and had published other books on the subject ? Because liek other published authors his works are subjected to reviews and critiques by other experts in the field ?

So why reject Duffy?

Because you haven't shown any evidenc eof bias on his part

I provided a citation from the Tablet underscoring his extensive anti-Catholicism.

Because you have huge and obvious deficits in the areas of Tudor history and European and English history ?

Right, which can be well perceived by someone from a grammar school education.

So avoiding the issue again. You haven't read the texts or others by the authors in question, so you lie about me.

LOL

Yeah, I lie about you all the time. You have hated Catholicism from day one. Everyone sees it Molly!

You mean like the Catholic Encyclopaedia ? I've already shown it doesn't agree with the figure you made up for executions of heretics in Mary Tudor's reign.

And when challenged to provide the figure for Elizabeth which is right in front of you, you declined. Odd that! Selective citation is quite handy.

I haven't used Wikipedia once. More lies.

HAHAHAHA.

Even when you Google you get things wrong. One might have thought it would be difficult to confuse the author of a book with the person who was reviewing the book- but not for you, it seems.

I was aware of the claim before the citation. I did some examination and found the claim listed as under this book by Eamon Duffy. So far all it's done is make you hysterical.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can argue about history with somebody honest who actually knows something about it. If it goes on long enough, you might get BFB in on the action too. As it is, you're just going over the same territory with BK over and over again; it's like a really crappy, run-down game of whack-a-mole where the mole only ever comes out one hole, takes multiple hits to go back down, and whines at you for your intolerance the whole time.

Someone got nailed with the rock that wasn't tossed at him!

[molly bloom]

Again, I supplied a citation.

You earlier claimed you provided a citation from the book being reviewed. You didn't; you supplied a review of the book itself.

Let us not forget that an unprecedented number — around 70,000 Englishmen — had been executed under Henry VIII during the religious and social upheavals he caused.

Those are the words of the reviewer, not the book's author. She does not state where she gets this figure from. I believe I have provided likeliest source for this error

Also :

Except it’s not really an up to date claim. It’s been doing the rounds since the 16th century, and is practically received knowledge. But more on that in a moment, as I like to subject these things to the old bull**** ‘smell test’. How plausible is the claim?

Well, the population in 1550 was around 2,800,000. 72,000 is 2.6% of the population – more than the percentage of the US population killed in the American Civil War, for example. That’s 2000 people a day on average – the equivalent of a large scale set-piece medieval battle. In fact, 72,000 deaths is more than twice the number of deaths than occurred in the bloodiest battle in English history. And I think the battle analogy is appropriate, because you’d be talking about a majority of physically able males – precisely the sort of people required to keep a strained post-medieval economy and fluctuating birth-rate going (bearing in mind that we aren’t just talking ‘capital’ crimes here). This would surely be a massive impact upon society (for better or worse) that (to the best of my knowledge) we just don’t see evidence of in the historical record. More than just one chronicler would have noticed a death toll of that nature. But more than that there’s the logistical difficulty of getting that many people killed. The Nazis had poison gas and automatic weapons. The Tudors had archery, arquebuses, and artillery. Then there’s the expense of (for the sake of argument) firing several people at a time out of a bombard – much easier to half-starve a criminal in a disease-ridden ****hole of a prison that he might well die in anyway.

Anyway, we’re verging on argument from incredulity, so let’s look at the evidence. This work has already been done, by James Anthony Froude and mid-19th century contributors to Notes and Queries. To summarise, the figure of 72,000 is usually (even today) attributed to chronicler Holinshed, but incorrectly so (a sure sign of a lack of primary source checking by those perpetuating a claim). The figure is sometimes disputed on the basis that said author was writing some 30 years after Henry’s death, but in fact by historical standards, that’s still a primary source. It’s actually William Harrison’s ‘Description of England‘ that the claim appears;

“Henry the Eighth, executing his laws very severely against such idle persons, I mean, great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues, did hang up threescore-and-twelve thousand of them in his time.”

http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/regarding-henry-and-his-bodycount/

and further :

Thanks to Harrison giving his sources, we see that, via astrologer Girolamo Cardano, the source is actually the Bishop of Lisieux. Now, I don’t need to tell you that bishop is a Catholic post. Nor should I that Henry’s relationship with the Pope was not the most cordial. But if I also told you also that the claim by this bishop is often given as being 72,000 Catholics, and not “thieves and rogues”, you might get a sense of the bias bound up in this myth. Note also an Irish Republican who states that the figure has been “computed” in order to lend it extra weight.

What if I then told you that the bishop in question was the brother of one of King Henry’s sworn enemies – the Admiral of France who led the same failed invasion of England that also saw the loss of Henry’s flagship, the Mary Rose? Between the personal, national, and denominational angst that the bish must have held toward Henry, we have more than enough bias to have serious concerns over the figure given.

You are crap.

[Ben Kenobi]

you linked to a book review, where the author asserted that henry VIII had 70,000 executed. what is that evidence of?

It's a citation demonstrating that the claim has been made by Eamon Duffy.

it's not evidence that henry VIII had 70,000 people executed.

It's a citation all the same.

it is merely evidence that someone thinks that he did.

Just as your citations are evidence of what the COE believes. Reality differs substantially.

that some idiot, you, believes that he had 75,000 people executed.

I believe he had 75k executed because Eamon Duffy, whom I regard as a reliable historian and professor at Cambridge believes that this occurred. Given issues with accurate counts at the time, it seems plausible to me, but I have sought greater information as to how he arrived at this figure. Which I have not yet received. Until then, I regard the matter as open.

so all you have proven is that someone believes that henry VIII had 5,000 fewer people executed than you believe he had. you have shown nothing about the actual number of people he had executed, which is well known and which molly and i have given to you several times.

The number is provided. That you choose to reject that number isn't evidence that this number is in fact incorrect. Nor, in fact, is it evidence on my part of bias, as I have provided the citation claiming this occurred.

If you want me to regard your sources as reliable, I suggest you return the favor. I am under no obligation to provide further evidence for people who reject evidence contrary to their anti-Catholic prejudices.

[molly bloom]

Eamon Duffy is a credentialed historian, a professor at Cambridge.

.

And ?

How does that not make you dishonest and wrong ?

Oh, it doesn't.

Let's take your stance- he's Irish, Roman Catholic and therefore anything he has to say about religion in England post-Reformation MUST be biased.

Happily I read books by Irish writers regularly without assuming that they're biased by whatever unpleasant experiences they may have had growing up in a state that colluded with the Catholic Church in the exploitation of female slave labour in the Magdalene Laundries.

[Ben Kenobi]

3% of the entire population of England at the time had been executed without any evidence of any sort to support that, you muppet.

As compared with what occurred in Germany during the 30 years war, this is not only in line, but rather light in terms of religious persecutions going on at the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

I used to feel some pity for you.

Now I think as all your intellectual deceit and self-deception is revealed, you richly and fully deserve all you get.

FRAUD. And you don't even understand how I know this to be so!

[kentonio]

As compared with what occurred in Germany during the 30 years war, this is not only in line, but rather light in terms of religious persecutions going on at the time.

Please learn to read.

without any evidence of any sort to support that

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a lie you've repeated several times now, and which is easily disproved by a simple timeline.

1569 - Revolt of the Northern Earls
1570 - Regnans in Excelsis excommunicating Elizabeth and ordering Catholics to oppose her rule as a matter of faith
1571 - Elizabeth's government issues anti-Catholic decrees
1571+ - Bulk of executions carried out against Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...4.E2.80.931547)

Oh, lookee that. Wikipedia citation after you claimed not to consult the wikipedia. Gosh. What else is Molly lying about?

Yeah sure, it's all just a conspiracy.

Google "tudor historians". Hardly a conspiracy when pro-Tudor bias has been well documented.

A citation to a work which was quickly demolished as utterly ridiculous.

Your assertion amounted to merely stating such was impossible. I'm not quite sure why you expected this to be decisive.

Stop repeating questions I've already answered please, we were not taught she was a monster, because that would have been patently untrue.

Yes, executing her cousin makes her a champion of the untrammelled, loved by the poor and all.

At my school? No

Thank you. No further questions, Molly.

Which makes your idea of a mass revisionist program even more ridiculous.

My assertion - grammar schools in England are not taught about the Pilgrimage of Grace. Your assertion, "yes Kenobi, you are quite correct on this."

Stop telling lies. I've posted the timeline above. If you want to disprove it then supply a list of executions that occurred before 1569.

Once again, it's wikipedia. Self-published sources are irrelevant.

The Pilgrimage of grace was a rebellion you idiot.

By whom? Catholics. And why? Because they were being persecuted.

I think you need to learn what revisionism actually means. When the evidence is clearly against you (as it is here) that's just you being wrong, it's not revisionism.

Elizabeth executed Mary Queen of Scots who was her cousin and heir apparent. Fact. Most monarchs on the English throne did not execute their heir apparent. Also fact. Richard III, who is accused (though not proven to have done so), was considered a bloodthirsty kinslayer, also fact.

If accusations of Richard III are sufficient to establish his reputation for all time, what can we say about actual proof that not only did this occur, but that Elizabeth was aware of it and responsible?

You and a few other crackpots making wild claims does not equal 'well attested'.

Again, "Tudor historians". Not difficult to find or document.

If you have evidence that can overcome the huge bodies of work that oppose you then produce it. Oh and stop with the contemptible 'You just hate Catholics' victim card crap, it's pathetic.

You do hate Catholics and reject evidence from them consistantly.