[P. Roehling]

"Jay Kadis" wrote

Many if not most of us teaching at a university are lecturers and are
not expected to do research or publish.

Not to worry: he's just trying to figure out how to get his foot out of his
mouth and his head out of his ass at the same time, and it's confusing him.

[N Hurst]

On Nov 18, 6:03 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 18 Nov 2007 17:50:43 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Sure he did but what has that to do with North America? You are aware
that he never went near the place in his life? Specifically not in
1492, although he did make it to South America sometime around 1500,
but by then everybody and his dog was going there.

Cuba is pretty near North America. Near enough to scare Kennedy anyway.
--scott

Close, but no cigar (like the pun?). The first discovery was in 1497
by John Cabot. He named the place after his sponsor, Richard Americ.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

I can't say anything about your cowboy argument, but there's a good
chance you're wrong about the "Richard Americ" thing.
I was taught that the Americas were named after the Italian
cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming

-Nathan

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
credentials he claimed.

OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
"investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
were definitely not the majority.

You may have confused what these programs were saying
re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
share of "ranch" jobs.

Bob M.


I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

On Nov 20, 2:13 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:00:23 +0100, Chel van Gennip



wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby
wrote:

Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
claim?

No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.

I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
except a lot of hot air.

I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
credentials he claimed.

I especially liked the part where you said you were always amused
by American ignorance:

He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
movie theatres.

Who do you reckon is displaying their ignorance here ?

[D C[_2_]]

N Hurst wrote:

I can't say anything about your cowboy argument, but there's a good
chance you're wrong about the "Richard Americ" thing.


Good chance, as in 100%.


I was taught that the Americas were named after the Italian
cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming

Yeah, that's it.

God Bless Vespucciland.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 3:40 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"





wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
credentials he claimed.

OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
"investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
were definitely not the majority.

You may have confused what these programs were saying
re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
share of "ranch" jobs.

Bob M.

I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another brit blowhard. Agrees with nothing, is right about everything
and spends immense amounts of energy trying to prove how clever he is.
I see this a lot with other brits I deal with. I think it's that whole
ass whooping thing during the Revolution and then again in 1812. But
you need to relax Donnie. As our record during WWII will attest (how
we saved the brits from being conquered), we are a forgiving bunch.
Just admit you are wrong and all will be forgiven.

Chuck

[BrianNZ]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
credentials he claimed.
OK, Don, but I think it may be time to admit that your
"investigative journalistic programmes" may have erred here.
I've lived in the western U.S. most of my life and am reasonably
familiar with the history of the region. While you are correct
in the belief that there were a fair number of black and Chinese
persons working here throughout the latter half of the 19th
century, it is simply not correct to think that the "huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese." There certainly were
cowboys of both races in the American Old West - but they
were definitely not the majority.

You may have confused what these programs were saying
re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
share of "ranch" jobs.

Bob M.


I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black.

Not until your bluff was called you didn't.
Here's your earlier post.......

"He's typical of his type, I'm afraid. I'm always amused at American
cowboy films, with their virile white men doing brave things. The huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese - and what they actually did
was herd cattle. But I guess that won't put backsides on seats in
movie theatres.

d"


.....in which you specific about "The huge majority of cowboys were black
or Chinese".....No mention of the South. Then you added this post later
on.........


"Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
Rawhide and Wagon Train. Certainly in the northern reaches there were
considerable numbers of white cowboys, but further south there were
countless operations staffed almost entirely by black labour even
after abolition. It is true that most of these men did their work on
foot rather than mounted - maybe you think this means they don't count
as real cowboys?

d"

.....where you mention the South, but the Chinese have disappeared?



It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

d


TV is entertainment first, factual if your'e lucky. Don't believe
everything you see on TV.

.................................................. ....................
Jack and Tom, are having a beer in a saloon when a cowboy walks in with
an Indian's head under his arm. He hands it to the barman, and the
barman hands him money. The barman turns to them and says, "I hate
Indians. Last week they burnt my barn to the ground and killed my wife
and three kids. Anybody brings me the head of an Indian, I'll give them
a thousand bucks."

Jack and Tom guzzle their beers and leave to go hunt Indians. After a
while, they finally spot one. Jack throws a rock, it hits him on the
head, the Indian falls off his horse, and rolls seventy feet down a
ravine. The two cowboys make their way down the ravine and Tom pulls
out his knife to claim their trophy.

Jack says, "Tom, take a look at this."

Tom says, "Not now, I'm busy."

Jack says, "I really think you should have a look."

Tom says, "Asshole, can't you see I'm busy? I've got a thousand dollars
in my hand."

Jack says, "Please, Tom, take a look."

Tom looks up at the top of the ravine, and there's five thousand Indians
standing around the rim.

Tom says, "****! We're gonna be millionaires!"

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
factual information, aren't you, troll boy.

Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
have treated badly.

(I guess he thinks "Chinese" and "black" are interchangeable, since
he's stopped referring to Chinese now.)

Who's "he", exactly? Are you referring to the researcher? No, he
didn't think that. He was quite specific on the roles of both black
and chinese workers in the cattle business.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:48:53 -0500, D C wrote:

N Hurst wrote:

I can't say anything about your cowboy argument, but there's a good
chance you're wrong about the "Richard Americ" thing.


Good chance, as in 100%.


Make that 0%. Unless of course you can tell me how Columbus managed to
name a place he hadn't actually been to, and had not the slightest
idea was there.

I was taught that the Americas were named after the Italian
cartographer Amerigo Vespucci.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming

Yeah, that's it.

God Bless Vespucciland.

There you lay your finger on the problem. The land naming conventions
of the day were subject to a strict protocol. What that meant was that
you could not name a new country for somebody's first name unless he
was a king, in which case you used his regnal name. If you were naming
for a commoner, you had to use his surname,giving - as you say -
Vespucciland. The fact that it is called America tells us that it was
named for a commoner whose surname was Americ. Which is exactly where
we are.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[D C[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

There you lay your finger on the problem. The land naming conventions
of the day were subject to a strict protocol. What that meant was that
you could not name a new country for somebody's first name unless he
was a king, in which case you used his regnal name. If you were naming
for a commoner, you had to use his surname,giving - as you say -
Vespucciland. The fact that it is called America tells us that it was
named for a commoner whose surname was Americ. Which is exactly where
we are.

What is your source for this?

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:02:02 -0500, D C wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

There you lay your finger on the problem. The land naming conventions
of the day were subject to a strict protocol. What that meant was that
you could not name a new country for somebody's first name unless he
was a king, in which case you used his regnal name. If you were naming
for a commoner, you had to use his surname,giving - as you say -
Vespucciland. The fact that it is called America tells us that it was
named for a commoner whose surname was Americ. Which is exactly where
we are.

What is your source for this?

Pull your Atlas off the shelf and have a look around.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

On Nov 20, 1:18 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
factual information, aren't you, troll boy.

Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
have treated badly.

So you can no longer recall clearly or recover any trace
of this guys research but apparantly still believe your
somewhat fuzzy recollection of it to be true ?

Does that pretty much summarize your position ?

[Mark & Juanita]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
wrote:


.... snip

You may have confused what these programs were saying
re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
share of "ranch" jobs.

Bob M.


I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

Well then, the information you got off the television was flat out wrong
(not that something like that would ever happen) and was apparently the
result of someone with a revisionist approach to history. Having had
family who were involved in agriculture from the late 1800's on in Texas, I
can assure you that your person with quote actual unquote academic
credentials was talking out of an orifice other than that normally used for
speech.

As others have said, the Irish, Chinese, and Black laborers were an
integral part of that project. But as to being the majority of those who
rode the open range herding cattle, that is not even close to true
historical information.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

[Mark & Juanita]

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:36:06 -0700, "Bob Myers"
wrote:


... snip

You may have confused what these programs were saying
re the West (within the continental U.S.) with what they may
have said about U.S. possessions in the late 19th and early
20th centuries. For example, Hawaii (although it's certainly
not the place you first think of when someone says "cowboy")
did (and still does) have a fair number of "cowboys," and
through the period in question brought in a LOT of Chinese
and Japanese laborers, some of whom certainly wound up in their
share of "ranch" jobs.

Bob M.


I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

Well then, the information you got off the television was flat out wrong
(not that something like that would ever happen) and was apparently the
result of someone with a revisionist approach to history. Having had
family who were involved in agriculture from the late 1800's on in Texas,
I can assure you that your person with quote actual unquote academic
credentials was talking out of an orifice other than that normally used
for speech.

As others have said, the Irish, Chinese, and Black laborers were an
integral part of that project. But as to being the majority of those who
rode the open range herding cattle, that is not even close to true
historical information.

"that project" being the transcontinental railroad.

[my newsreader ate it, really.]
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

[Bob Myers]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

Sorry, Don, but credentials mean very, very little when
the facts turn out to be incorrect, as they do here. Your
original claim, as I think everyone will recall, was based on
your amusement at what you referred to as "American
cowboy films," which we can only assume are those of the
genre commonly referred to as "Westerns." Now, the area
covered by the American phrase "the Old West" is
certainly enormous - in some contexts, it would include
pretty much everything west of the Mississippi River,
from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to the south, and
up to Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas in the north. By
"southern setups" in this context you would have to be
referring to the Arizona-through-Texas swath, but of those
three (actually, at the time, Arizona and New Mexico
were the New Mexico Territory, until 1912) only Texas was
ever a slave state, and so had the highest black population
following the American Civil War. Even so, the majority of
cowboys in Texas were of European descent.

If you still insist on academic credentials (I mean, what would
I know - I just live here; and wouldn't dream of lecturing you
on UK history, but I digress), then please consider the following
from Dr. Richard W. Slatta, professor of history at North
Carolina State University (and one who has written extensively
on the history of cowboys and the American Old West; he's
rather well known among Old West historians as the "cowboy
professor"):

"Frontier regions lack the extensive documentation typical
of cities. The lack of documents makes it difficult to compute
the number of cowboys or their ethnicity. According to the
highest estimate, the trail drives north from Texas (1866 to
1895) employed about 63 percent white, 25 percent black,
and 12 percent Mexican or Mexican-American cowboys.
Unfortunately, most black and Hispanic cowboys faced social
and economic discrimination in the West as they did elsewhere
in the country."

For more information, see:

http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/...ackcowboys.htm

http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/slattabks.htm

As to the "Chinese cowboys" - Asian immigrants in the West,
through the end of the 19th century were concentrated in the
Pacific Northwest and California coastal and mining regions;
they did tend to spread eastward, but not as cowboys - rather,
as was noted earlier, as railroad and mining workers. I am sure
that, given their numbers, a few no doubt wound up as
"cowboys" - but this was the exception rather than the rule. As
noted in the above, non-white cowboys were almost invariably
either black or Hispanic.

Bob M.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:38:47 -0700, Turby
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:18:57 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:02:52 -0700, Turby
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:40:36 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I was quite specific that it was the southern setups that were mostly
black. It was less true in the more norther areas. And no, I wasn't
mistaken about what was said; it was a very interesting programme
(made by somebody with ACTUAL academic credentials, not pretend night
class ones, you understand).

unh huh. But you convieniently forget the name of the show or the
names of these so-called academics. Boy, you're just a wealth of
factual information, aren't you, troll boy.

Yup. A while ago now - couple of years at least. Tough break eh? Now
I'm sure he could just have read the standard texts and trotted out
the same arguments I have been hearing here, but he didn't. He went
and did his own digging, his own research and found that things were
quite different from the way everybody told it. That is hardly
surprising, really; we tend to try and ignore and forget those whom we
have treated badly.

Until you can come up with some cite, some evidence, something other
than your farcical claims, nobody's going to believe you. You made the
claim, back it up.

You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me. It is highly
illuminating, though, that nobody (including our fake academic) has
managed to produce any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
the world of proof by shouting louder, here?

(I guess he thinks "Chinese" and "black" are interchangeable, since
he's stopped referring to Chinese now.)

Who's "he", exactly?

You.

Are you referring to the researcher? No, he
didn't think that. He was quite specific on the roles of both black
and chinese workers in the cattle business.

Either he was wrong, or, more likely, you didn't understand or
comprehend what he said, and put your own interpretation on it. The
fact remains, there was a negligible number of Chinese cowboys in the
American West.

Either that or his personal research, not relying on the standard
texts, threw up some stuff that was a bit different to the standard
model.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:15:27 +0100, Chel van Gennip
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me.

As are the facts.

It is highly illuminating, though, that nobody ... has managed to produce
any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
the world of proof by shouting louder, here?

You indeed try to prove your statement "The huge majority of cowboys
were black or Chinese" by shouting louder without any supporting material.

You think that is shouting? Interesting.

Just read
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._95149972/pg_1
to find some factual information. The number of black cowboys is
estimated between 10% and 25%, not really a "vast majority" but just in
line with the population at the time as presented in:
http://usapopulationmap.com/race_1850.html

Yes, that is the standard picture. I know all about that.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Brendan Doyle]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:12:29 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:14:42 -0800, "P. Roehling"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote

Don't believe you.

Who cares what you believe? You also claim to believe that "the huge
majority of cowboys were black or Chinese". Now either cite your proofs
for
that claim or admit you were wrong.

Your claim shrinks somewhat when challenged. You have failed.

Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
claim?

No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.
Is that you too, or do you have something?

d


"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.

--
Brendan Doyle

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.

So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
symptoms.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Brendan Doyle]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.

So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
symptoms.

d

You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
your brain before your fingers next time.

--
Brendan Doyle

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.

So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
symptoms.

d

You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
your brain before your fingers next time.

If you are a sensible person, who doesn't indulge in superstitious
fantasy, or kow tow to received authority, kindly stop posting like
some smug brainless git who does. Your witless platitude was decidedly
unimpressive.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Brendan Doyle]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.

So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
symptoms.

d

You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
your brain before your fingers next time.

If you are a sensible person, who doesn't indulge in superstitious
fantasy, or kow tow to received authority, kindly stop posting like
some smug brainless git who does. Your witless platitude was decidedly
unimpressive.

d

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. But when one digs in his heels with
increasing belligerence and irrationality in the face of accumulating
evidence to the contrary, supported by multiple citations, it just
becomes an embarrassing spectacle. Hurling insults is not a substitute
for reason, and does not advance your cause. It really is okay to admit
you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
contrary.

--
Brendan Doyle

[Brendan Doyle]

In article ,
Brendan Doyle wrote:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes.

Like I did just now while rewording the above statement. That should
have come out:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is
mistaken.

--
Brendan Doyle

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:59:10 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:58 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's
mouth and remove all doubt." It's a bit late for you, I'm afraid.

So for you a sensible person is somebody who swallows what he has been
told whole, challenges nothing. You must be another of those in this
group suffering from the disease of religion. You exhibit the
symptoms.

d

You know nothing about me whatsoever. And I can assure you that your
baseless assumption completely misses the mark. You might want to engage
your brain before your fingers next time.

If you are a sensible person, who doesn't indulge in superstitious
fantasy, or kow tow to received authority, kindly stop posting like
some smug brainless git who does. Your witless platitude was decidedly
unimpressive.

d

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. But when one digs in his heels with
increasing belligerence and irrationality in the face of accumulating
evidence to the contrary, supported by multiple citations, it just
becomes an embarrassing spectacle. Hurling insults is not a substitute
for reason, and does not advance your cause. It really is okay to admit
you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
contrary.

You are the one who called me a fool, so you can lay off this pious
holier-than-thou **** about hurling insults. I stand by every word I
have written, because I consider my source to be well researched and
well reasoned. It stands in stark contrast to the attitude I have
found here which is that the situation must be so because that is what
we have always been told. That kind of head-in-the-sand attitude is
what perpetuates myths and untruths, normally arising from some
official line the people are expected to swallow. Those very citations
are typical of the ones which were examined and discredited.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:04:31 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

In article ,
Brendan Doyle wrote:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes.

Like I did just now while rewording the above statement. That should
have come out:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is
mistaken.

Are you actually Saint Brendan? You really are very, very good, you
know. Sanctimoniousness just knows no bounds in you, does it? And I
bet you never, ever question anything the priest tells you to do.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Brendan Doyle]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:59:10 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes. But when one digs in his heels with
increasing belligerence and irrationality in the face of accumulating
evidence to the contrary, supported by multiple citations, it just
becomes an embarrassing spectacle. Hurling insults is not a substitute
for reason, and does not advance your cause. It really is okay to admit
you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
contrary.

You are the one who called me a fool, so you can lay off this pious
holier-than-thou **** about hurling insults. I stand by every word I
have written, because I consider my source to be well researched and
well reasoned. It stands in stark contrast to the attitude I have
found here which is that the situation must be so because that is what
we have always been told. That kind of head-in-the-sand attitude is
what perpetuates myths and untruths, normally arising from some
official line the people are expected to swallow. Those very citations
are typical of the ones which were examined and discredited.

d


So let's see, the very fact that an opinion is contrarian increases the
likelihood that it is true? Interesting reasoning. Contrarian thinking
is always valuable, in fact indispensable, in testing accepted bodies of
knowledge, especially in science and in history, but without citable
evidence to support it, it's not particularly useful. You say that you
consider your sources to be well-researched and well-reasoned; if that
is indeed the case, surely you would be willing, even eager, to share
some of that reasearch and reasoning, and provide some citations to
support it. I am willing to be persuaded, but not without evidence. We
have heard multiple citations of evidence to the contrary, so the ball
is now in your court.

--
Brendan Doyle

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 8:12 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:04:31 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:
In article ,
Brendan Doyle wrote:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is were
mistaken. Everyone makes mistakes.

Like I did just now while rewording the above statement. That should
have come out:

You know, there is no shame in stating something that one thinks is
fact, and then retracting it when it becomes obvious that one is
mistaken.

Are you actually Saint Brendan? You really are very, very good, you
know. Sanctimoniousness just knows no bounds in you, does it? And I
bet you never, ever question anything the priest tells you to do.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

What a douchebag! Are you like this in all aspects of your life? No
wonder you're a "consultant". You're too much of an asshole to work
amongst normal people. Business must not be too good though - it looks
like you spend most of your time trolling. You obviously impress
yourself with your command of the language, but all that aside, you
are a social retard. And besides that, you are just plain wrong.

[Paul Stamler]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

You are very welcome to believe or disbelieve whomsoever you choose. I
can assure you it is a matter of no importance to me. It is highly
illuminating, though, that nobody (including our fake academic) has
managed to produce any actual evidence that I am wrong. Or are we in
the world of proof by shouting louder, here?

No, but the onus is on *you* to produce some evidence that you're right. The
rule "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" holds here.
You're claiming something that goes against the grain of accepted belief. No
law against that; it'show new ideas come into the canon. But you're not
going to be believed until and unless you present *evidence* for the
proposition.

Either he was wrong, or, more likely, you didn't understand or
comprehend what he said, and put your own interpretation on it. The
fact remains, there was a negligible number of Chinese cowboys in the
American West.

Either that or his personal research, not relying on the standard
texts, threw up some stuff that was a bit different to the standard
model.

Which of course is entirely possible, but without information on who the guy
was, where he published, etc., we've no way to evaluate whether his research
is credible, or whether he's just another fringe researcher pushing the
academic equivalent of solid-silver cables with buckskin insulation. You
have Google; if you're going to present this guy's findings as established
fact ("the vast majority of cowboys were black and Chinese") rather than a
recent dissenting opinion ("one maverick researcher has suggested that the
vast majority..."), go find out who he is, and tell us.

A great bit of dialogue from the original film "Bedazzled" comes to mind.
I'm slightly paraphrasing; the participants are the devil (played by Peter
Cook) and Stanley Moon (played by Dudley Moore):

Stanley: You're a bleedin' nut case!

Devil: Ah, they said that about Newton, they said that about Galileo...

Stanley: They said it about a lot of bleedin' nut cases too.

Peace,
Paul

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

On Nov 21, 5:07 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:59:10 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:32:02 GMT, Brendan Doyle wrote:

It really is okay to admit
you were mistaken. Noone will think less of you for it; quite the
contrary.

You are the one who called me a fool, so you can lay off this pious
holier-than-thou **** about hurling insults. I stand by every word I
have written, because I consider my source to be well researched and
well reasoned.

If you were able to offer a cite, we could then determine for
ourselves whether your source was well researched and
reasoned.

As it happens, several years ago on the telly, I saw a man
with ACTUAL academic credentials who said your source
and those who believed him were incredibly stupid.

Sorry I can't offer a better cite to back this up but I consider
my source to be much more well reasoned and researched
than your source so that pretty much proves my case.

Hope this helps.

[Charlie Self]

On Nov 19, 2:53 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:38:49 -0800, "P. Roehling"



wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote

Ah, I see you studied your history from such authoritative works as
Rawhide and Wagon Train.

Heh. I majored in history -and psychology- and taught at the University of
California for twelve years thereafter. That included reading really
honest-to-goodness history texts written by really honest-to-goodness
American history scholars, and it's pretty amusing to hear a Brit try to
teach American history to someone who was raised in the American southwest,
went to school there, and has taught the subject himself.

But hey; feel free to cite your authoritative texts that show that (in your
words) "the huge majority of cowboys were black or Chinese".

Don't believe you. Give me some references to your papers so I can
look you up. I thought Google's academic search might throw up a few,
but strangely there was nought but silence.


Hey, asshole, several of us have asked you to put up or shut up.
You've done neither and you want someone ELSE to post credentials?

[Charlie Self]

On Nov 20, 5:13 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:00:23 +0100, Chel van Gennip



wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:37:33 -0700, Turby
wrote:

Your claim, OTOH, hasn't shrunk, it's damn well disappeared. Talk
about failure - can't you even fake a cite to support that ridiculous
claim?

No need, when the so-called academic experts prove to be just hot air.

I see one example of hot air, and that is your claim: "The huge majority
of cowboys were black or Chinese" and your repeated statement that there
is no need to support that claim. You don't have to question the
academic status of the questioners, just answer the question, and
support your claim. So far you have given nothing to support your claim,
except a lot of hot air.

I made no academic claim. My information comes from a variety of
sources, mainly investigative journalistic programmes on the TV. Had I
made an academic claim, you would be perfectly justified to call me on
it. I didn't. Roehling did, I called him and he proved not to have the
credentials he claimed.


I saw it on TV so it has to be true. New academic standard.

You must have brown eyes.