| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Continuing my policy of filleting my Medium depository for stuff that may be of interest here to those without access to there, I will put up any vaguely AE-related stories, one a day, as per. I won't worry about repetition since you can just ignore those you have read before.
After a coupla months putting up stories that were either knockabout or political, I thought it time I got back to the day job. I started with this, to test the water. It got 36 views, 21 reads, 2 people clapped and one person responded in a mildly bewildered way.
-------------
Ten Important Books That Are In Fact Fakes April 6, 2023
I have no doubt in my mind that all the following books are fakes, i.e. not written by the person named on the cover, but who precisely did write them — insofar as that is known to me — I will reveal if anyone shows any interest. On the whole, people prefer things the way they are but there might be some adventurous souls out there.
The Canterbury Tales
Officially written by Geoffrey Chaucer, late 14th century, in England
The Pepys Diaries
Officially written by Samuel Pepys, 1660–1669, in London
Candide
Officially written by Voltaire, about 1760, in Switzerland
The Book of Kells
Officially copied by unknown monks, in the 9th century, Iona, Scotland
Casanova’s Memoirs
Officially written by Giacomo Casanova, 1790’s, in Bohemia
The Mabinogion
Officially compiled by unknown scribes, 11–13th centuries, in Wales
The New Testament
Officially written by various hands, 1st century AD, in the Middle East
Beowulf
Officially by an unknown Anglo-Saxon poet, 8th-10th centuries, in England
The Encyclopédie
Officially compiled by Diderot and d’Alembert, 1750’s, in France
De Bello Gallico
Officially written by Julius Caesar, around 50 BC, in Rome
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
|
The most interesting one to me is the Encyclopedie, if only because I don't understand the reason for faking it. And didn't you write somewhere that it's mostly "lost"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| And didn't you write somewhere that it's mostly "lost"? |
I wrote that it has never been found. From Wiki (or something similar)
An original copy of the first edition is now an expensive antiquarian item. There is an auction record of one copy that sold for $94,000 in 1998 and there are 18th century reprints but these are now as inaccessible as the original.
Access to digital versions of most of the original edition, both text and plates, is now possible. But in all cases there are issues which complicate, unnecessarily, simple scholarly access to one of the most important books in the history of the western world.
The natural source for the Encyclopédie is, of course, the Bibliothèque nationale de France. However, they do not seem to have all of it online via their “Gallica” digital library website. (Volumes 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are missing, as is the last volume of plates.) |
I think most here are experienced enough to read between the lines. As to why it was faked that is, I agree, more tenuous. This was how the chapter ended. Not with a bang certainly, but more than a whimper. [There are twenty-odd pages of circumstantial evidence attesting to fakery in between.]
------
The simple truth is that the French had a political problem in the nineteenth century when military conquests, with special reference to French military conquests, were thoroughly passé. The leading nations could only compete by, as we would call it today, soft power.
Notably whose political system was best suited to this new world of seemingly unstoppable breakneck industrial development but, with recent events firmly in mind, delivered with minimal changes to the political status quo. France had not done much for advancement during the eighteenth century – too busy advancing France – and that would have to be revisited now the thoroughly eighteenth-century Bourbons were back in the saddle.
The French were not alone in wanting to cast a retrospective cultural glow. The Russians and the Austrians were in the same position but were content to respectively re-brand Catherine the Great and Leopold II as towering figures of this Enlightenment everyone was talking about. The French, as can be their wont, went a great deal further by claiming they had invented the whole thing.
And what’s more they had an encyclopaedia to prove it. You would think the rest of the world might notice this unsuspected cultural behemoth come amongst them but there you would be wildly overestimating historians’ ability to distinguish between historical fact and state-sponsored fiction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Ten Important Books That Are In Fact Fakes April 6, 2023
|
Not very radical if you left this one off the list.
| The Works of Shakespeare - by "William Shakespeare". | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't be very AE of me either. This being the most orthodox of all fakery accusations. Even if I accepted the thesis, the title is not The Ten Most Important Books That Are In Fact Fakes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It's one thing preaching to the thirsting-to-be-converted here, it's quite another dropping paradigm bombshells on a not-overly-bright general audience on Medium. I never found out how to do it, judging by results, but here is an early bomblet.
-------------
English, my English April 8, 2023
But not your English
Ever wondered why I’m writing to you in English? Probably not, there’s a lot of it about on Medium. What I meant was, why is it called English?
| “Is it something to do with Anglo-Saxons?” I hear you say in a disinterested voice, wishing I’d get on with it. |
All right, keep your hair on, I’m doing my best here. And it’s ‘uninterested’ by the way, ‘disinterested’ means impartial. Ever wondered why French is called French? Or français as they call it in their language.
| “Something to do with Franks, is it?” I hear you say, with more than a soupçon of impatience. |
Don’t be in such a hurry. You’ve just fallen into my trap. The Franks were German-speakers who occupied Gaul after the Romans left and gave their name to it, hence France. Hence français, the language spoken by the people living in France.
| That’s fair enough but nobody has ever suggested that French is Frankish, have they? Certainly you don’t believe any such thing, do you? |
The Anglo-Saxons were German-speakers who occupied the southern half of Britain after the Romans left and gave their name to it, hence England. Hence English, the language spoken by the people living in England. Everybody believes English is Anglo-Saxon.
| Including you. But not me. |
I don’t think English has got anything to do with Anglo-Saxons, apart from them having a language related to ours, and governing us for a bit. Maybe a few loanwords swapped between the two of us, but that’s it.
You might be surprised to hear there’s no actual evidence that Anglo-Saxon evolved into English, it’s just something people have been saying since the seventeenth century, for want of a better theory. We’re hardly likely to go round saying the World Language has no known origin, are we?
What’s that? You’re not going to change the habits of a lifetime just on my say-so? You prefer to agree with every linguist, every historian and every Anglo-Saxon specialist in the world today? If that’s going to be your attitude I’ll leave you to stew in your own bouillabaisse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The one of most interest to Wiley is De Bello Gallico, officially written by Julius Caesar. I notice some folks have gone public with the idea that Caesar's invasion of Britain did not happen and De Bello Gallico was an invented story of Alfred the Great.
For example, BG records that Caesar arrived in 54 BC on clinker-built ships – a vessel never used by the Romans and not by anyone until the third century – which were familiar to Alfred as they featured heavily in his own West Saxon fleet.
In addition, the description of the Britons in BG closely matches that of the Danes in the ninth century, while Caesar’s experience fighting them is similar to Alfred’s against the Vikings. The ancient Brits, according to BG, wore animal skins and did not eat grain – a claim contradicted by modern archaeologists.
Throughout BG, Celtic and Old English terms frequently appear, geography is referenced that is six centuries premature and anachronistic errors are made regarding Roman weapons not yet invented nor used. |
https://cphpost.dk/2017-08-16/news/caesar-conquering-britain-a-9th-century-invention-by-alfred-the-great/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Beowulf, officially by an unknown Anglo-Saxon poet, 8th-10th centuries, in England....
It's really not that important one way or another for Wiley. TBH It's off my list. To be replaced by:
The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, officially by the English historian Bede.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Having dipped my toe in a coupla paradigm revisions I decided it was time to let rip with this one
-------------
Today’s Competition is ‘Spot the Artefact’ April 25, 2023
What’s natural and what isn’t
What you are taught is what you believe. Which is fine for stuff like writing, reading and ’rithmetic, they haven’t changed forever. But not necessarily for academic subjects like geology which are changing all the time. Or should be.
If you are a geology lecturer at a university, it means you will be teaching what you learned at university, which will be what your lecturer learned at university and so on all the way back to… well, they don’t call geology the Rock of Ages for nothing.
Bear that in mind as we decide what should be taught in university geology departments. It may be that certain things are better taught in archaeology departments. There is not much prospect of this, academic subjects never let anything go willingly. That is why they are called ‘disciplines’, each guarding its own corner of the ivory tower.
We can start though with one that did get away. Here is Silbury Hill in the Royal Borough of Berkshire. Natural or artificial?
Artificial. So obvious even geologists recognise it should be handed over to the archaeologists. Though it took them a bit of time. Now, it is officially ‘the biggest earthwork in Europe’ but only because Europe is full of even bigger earthworks that geologists claim are natural.
Your next test is the Cheesewright Stones in the Royal Duchy of Cornwall. (I’m bucking for a peerage while the new man is still getting his knees under the table and before Labour wins the next election and abolishes peerages.)
| pic of Cheeswright Stones |
Yes, of course, obviously manmade. A work of art. Or at least it would be if you saw it in a sculpture park with a little plaque saying ‘Barbara Hepworth (1903–75)’. But as it is on a hilltop in Cornwall, geologists say it is natural. Something about differential weathering. You will have to ask them but ask nicely, they’re big bastards with hammers.
Let’s go to sea! Here is Durdle Dor in the Royal (it should be, my mum’s buried there) County of Dorset
A bit trickier, this one. There is no question the elements could have done the job but since Dorset has more megalithic monuments than people with any sense (sorry, mum, but it’s true) the elements probably didn’t do it. But if they did, well done the elements! Because there’s another one just like it on the other side of the Channel.
You’re on a roll so let’s roll over the border into Somerset (where the zuyder apples grow so you won’t get a lot of sense out of them either). But the real stoners all gather at Glastonbury in the shadow of the Tor
Even the locals think it is natural. “It’s natural, man.” Which is a pretty good reason to suppose it is artificial, though I will leave you to check out the geology. The geologists have and can’t make head nor tail of it — not that this is precisely how they put it. You’ll be able to put them straight now I’ve tipped you the wink.
We won’t be dealing with Maiden Castle (too easy) but we can trace a dead straight, due south line from it, across Portland Bill and Chesil Bank (too easy) until this meridian — for that is what north-south lines are — reaches Jethou, the same size and shape as Maiden Castle. Who’d have credited it? Mother Nature strikes twice. Or once but in two different places. Then arranged the earth on its axis so the two places… look, it’s complicated.
Jethou is in centre of the Channel Islands where my mum was born, next to the Gran’mère in Guernsey. And where I was conceived when she laid her hands reverently on the Gran’mère. That’s what she told me when I asked her how babies were made and what you are taught is what you believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
My most frequent task--there as well as here--is to define the AE position as being above the hurly-burly. Anthropologists observing local rites, not taking part in them.
------------------
It’s Vote Tory, Vote Labour or Devil Take the Hindmost
That’s not gonna be me Jul 7, 2023
The Conservatives used to be decent old coves. Not people I would ever consider voting for but the country often has. Now they are unruly and very badly behaved. The Conservatives that is, the country is the same boring place it always was.
Unfortunately this has made them — we’re back with the Tories again— rather attractive since I tend to think of British politics as a branch of showbiz, ours being an immensely easy country to run, and why we don’t waste major talent on governing it.
| So should I break the habits of a lifetime and consider voting Conservative at the upcoming (2024) General Election? |
What are my choices?
* Living in London rules out the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.
* Living in a Tory/Labour marginal rules out the Lib Dems and the Greens.
* So it’s either them or them and I’m on a bit of a knife-edge.
| It’s not exactly “How goes M J Harper, goes the country” but it is up to me to behave responsibly. No more showbiz for you, my boy. |
Since the exciting days of Jeremy Corbyn (you won’t remember him but he was a Leninist gadfly who came within an ace of taking us into the Venezuela/Sandinista camp) the Labour Party has become the Conservative Party de nos jours, deadly dull. Except they have a novelty up their sleeve: built-in budget deficits. Which is troubling.
I have nothing against deficit financing per se. The Labour Party’s traditional role is to spend wildly on things we actually need and then the Tories come back and start paying it back.
But this Labour Party has promised to spend wildly in the traditional way but, on top of that, whatever can be defined as ‘a capital project’ will be separately financed and won’t, they tell us, count towards the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. As opposed to not separately financed, the practice followed by successive governments since Budget Day, 1066.
In fact it’s been practised by every government going back to King Hammurabi c. 3000 BC because, as I am sure his Chancellor of the Exchequer told him, “It is immaterial what we call it, sire, it is immaterial what we spend it on, it’s all just money in/money out, then borrow if the out is more than the in. As long as someone is prepared to lend us the money, we can build capital projects to your majesty’s heart’s content.”
It only took the money markets a month to rumble Liz Truss when she started monkeying around with them so I doubt whether ‘Sir’ Keith Starmer will last a full term doing it. On the other hand financial crises are always fun. [“Mick… you promised.” All right, I hear you.]
| I won’t vote for either of them, that’ll teach ’em. In my constituency that means there’s no point in voting at all. |
In fact, now I come to think of it, I’ve never voted. National, local, mayoral, referendums, Eurovision Song Contests, all grist for my abstentionist mill. We’ve been governed tolerably well for the whole of my voting lifetime so why change a winning formula? And we won the Eurovision Song Contest without me lifting a finger. More than once.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I thought I'd try them out on a paradigm shift and see what happened. It did get a bit of traction but I abandoned the project when it led to quite a nice breakthrough of my own which I didn't want to waste on Medium.
----------
The Origins of Agriculture October 17, 2023
The present explanation — ‘it just happened’ — is no longer good enough
The only people in the world today that are both successful and use pre-agricultural methods are the Sámi reindeer-herders of Sweden and Finland. So it does not seem unreasonable to look to them for clues about the vexed question of how agriculture came about.
It may not have been the Sámi and it may not have been reindeer, but if we shift the Sámi model back to c. 40,000 BP, before domestication of either plants or animals, what are our prospects out there on the Eurasian steppe?
Left to our own devices, we are not well suited to grasslands. We cannot eat the grass and there are few alternatives ripe for the picking. Nor are we designed to catch animals designed not to be caught by the many and varied predators already there. What to do?
There is one abundant food source we can ‘keep up with’ — the vast slow-moving herds always to be found on grassland plains. They may be wildebeest, they may be bison, but let us assume for these purposes they are reindeer.
These toothsome beasts may be fearfully difficult to catch and kill on an individual basis, but a whole herd of them may welcome a spot of symbiosis if everyone plays their cards right.
For instance, human beings can keep predators away or, if they can’t, warn the reindeer they’re coming. Herbivores have more to fear from four-legged predators than lumbering two-legged ones. Looked at from the reindeer’s POV, this might be worth the price of co-operation.
Especially if that price is little more than allowing these bipedal fellow-travellers to dine on the sick, the lame and the dead rather than the usual scavengers dining on the sick, the lame and the dead. Before you know it, it’s a permanent arrangement. The reindeer can peaceably continue their annual migrations north and south in search of new grass, the human beings can start dreaming up ways of building on this new relationship. They did, after all, possess IQ’s similar to our own.
Both sides to the bargain had a vested interest in increasing the number of reindeer and all grazers are limited by the same factor: the availability of grass in the dry season — or in the case of reindeer, the cold season. Can human beings do anything to help?
They can try. If some of them are excused herd-following duties they can keep competing herbivores away from what grass there is and the reindeer will be only too grateful to be ‘directed’ to pristine green pastures. A good start but not decisive. There may be more reindeer and more humans but it’s not what you would call transformative.
There is though one new factor that has been introduced into the Palaeolithic: a bunch of people professionally concerned with maximising grassland pastures and nothing to do all day except saying boo to herbivores intent on minimising it.
So what did they do with all this spare time, invent cricket? No, perforce, they turned their attention to Mother Nature who was doing plenty of minimising on her own account. Uneaten grass waits for no reindeer, that which does not wither is dispatched to the four winds.
Our left-behind (or sent on ahead) would-be agronomists had thirty thousand years to think about it, so to summarise their better ideas:
* Everything we think of today as human cereal consumption — from bread to beer — should be reinterpreted as by-products of experiments to make animal feed more nutritious, more easily transportable, storable for longer. What was good for the reindeer goose was found to be good for the reindeer-following ganders. What is muesli but bran-plus-reindeer milk?
* Everything we think of today as farm animals are really designed — domesticated as we would call it — to exploit these new protected pastures: a main grazer (cattle), a short grass specialist (sheep), a rough grazer (goats) and a what’s left omnivore (pigs). Semi-domesticated reindeer could be left to the Sámi.
* Everything we think of today as ‘civilisation’ happened when the southern pastures were full and there was only semi-arid savannah and full desert to the south. Let’s invent irrigation!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This was the start of a series demonstrating basic AE principles 'in the home'
--------------
Are They Lying or Just Plain Dumb? February 8, 2024
What do you do if someone says something you find impossible to believe?
The first thing to do is not to assume they are lying or just plain dumb. Although it is a natural thing to do, neither is at all likely:
* When people lie their intention is to deceive so, if they have just said something which is patently unbelievable, they will presumably know this and presumably won’t use this particular lie.
* When people are dumb they say whatever is the usual explanation, if they express any opinion at all. You may not agree with it but you would not be able to diagnose they are dumb for saying it.
We encounter this general problem on a daily basis in politics. Somebody pops up on the box and says something which causes you to turn to your companion on the couch, “He can’t possibly believe that can he, darling?” “I shouldn’t have thought so, darling, no.” Thus illustrating two salient points about the philosophy of the situation:
(1) Men are more likely to say ‘impossible’ things than women, though the gap is narrowing
(2) People socialise with people who agree with them.
But now comes the interesting part philosophically. How do the two of you account for the fact that someone has been invited to appear on the kind of TV programme you watch and yet is in possession of opinions that the makers of that programme must know are patently false? That is more difficult to explain than you might think. The obvious explanations soon fall by the wayside:
A. Television execs do not ordinarily invite dumb people onto their programmes. In fact this one appears to be more than ordinarily lucid.
B. It is unlikely the TV programme makers share this persons ‘impossible’ views, you watch their programmes all the time and have seen no evidence of this kind of general unsoundness.
C. It may be the person is lying in the narrow sense of being paid to say it or wishes to retain membership of a group that believes it, but that only increases the problem since now you have to explain why a whole bunch of people believe this impossible thing and appear to have the power and money to get people to say it on network television.
D. It may be the person is dumb in the narrow sense of repeating a rote formula, making the situation even worse since now you have to account for an entire population believing impossible things.
But you have to do something. You can’t say, “Darling, we’ll have to look at the situation philosophically. There appears to be people similar to ourselves that believe impossible things. They must have arrived at the position broadly from data they share with us. This would appear to mean philosophically it is more likely than not that we are in error.”
“How do you work that out?”
“There are only three possibilities: we are right and they are wrong, they are right and we are wrong, we are all wrong. On the face of it, there’s more than a fifty-fifty chance we are wrong.”
“I shouldn’t worry about it, dear. Work tomorrow, time for beddybies.”
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A companion piece of the above.
-------------
Am I Lying or Just Plain Dumb? February 9, 2024
In my companion piece, Are They Lying or Just Plain Dumb, I described the situation when somebody says something that cannot possibly be true, and how you react when that happens. It posed no great difficulty because it was almost invariably a case of
| You and everyone like you versus them and everyone like them. |
It didn’t matter which side you were on, there is safety in numbers. You might be wrong but you’ll be wrong along with everyone else you know, so what does it matter? Besides, you weren’t wrong and I’ll take your word for that, whatever it was, because
| You were there, I wasn’t. |
Now we’re going to move to the tricky one. How are you going to react if it is just me saying something that cannot possibly be true? Because this time
As we have never met and it is only me saying it, you can be sure you will not have heard whatever it is before. So you won’t know at first blush whether what I’m saying is true or not. All you know is that it is not what you believe and therefore presumptively untrue.
However you can’t stay and find out because I’m pretty likely to know more about whatever it is than you are so you could find yourself in a bit of a pickle. There is an easy get out though because, since there is only one of me, you can simply say
| “Good on you, mate, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about but it’s a free country so you just carry on believing it. Nice talking to you.” |
Not so fast. Whatever else I am, I’m not so dumb as to go up to perfect strangers and start saying things that can be easily dismissed. I will make sure I’ll be saying whatever it is in an appropriate way, in an appropriate setting and it will be something that will arrest your attention. How, for instance, will you react when I tell you
| “Plate tectonics is a bunch of bollocks and only jackasses believe in it.” |
You won’t. That’s what makes it tricky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This is the introduction to the wider world of one of our faves, 'the bogus list'. This is actually a pretty good definition of it and why it is so useful. It was however probably a mistake giving myself credit for it rather than conveying the impression it was a well-honed technique.
PS It got two reads. I sent it to Hannah Fry but got no response.
------------
Lies, Damned Lies and Bogus Lists February 28, 2024
It is a little known fact (well, it was to me) that more boys than girls are born. The ratio is 104 of the good guys to every hundred of them. This applies to all races at all times and is something of a mystery because sperms aren’t supposed to know what gender ratio they are competing for.
The standard explanation is that evolution has to take into account that men are more likely to die young than women so has arranged for male embryos to be favoured at the beginning of each fertility cycle. This is quite sufficient because there can only be one fertilisation per cycle and while every sex act is equal the first successful one is more equal than others on account of there won’t be any others. Yup, babies are front-end loaded.
You will probably join me in listing reservations, like
1. You’ve left out the bit about how the body arranges this subtle imbalance. I know about turtle eggs all becoming male if it gets too hot but still…
2. How does having marginally more men around help the survival of the fittest? I’d have fewer of the bastards if I was in charge and more women but maybe it’s got something to do with nurture and nature.
3. Fertility cycles are a big deal in lots of cultures. How come they all end up producing 104 to 100 every time? Sorry, that’s just not possible. I demand a recount.
What does our official organ have to say on the subject?
| More British boys than girls were born in 1919, 1944 and 1973. Hannah Fry, Discovery, BBC Radio 4. |
Ms Fry is the BBC’s tame statistician and quite a good egg. ‘Over and above the normal 104/100 and chance variation of course,’ she added, in case we were wondering. And why was that, Hannah, we asked, leaning further into our crystal sets.
Well, it’s like this, she said in paraphrase, men were coming back from the wars and engaging in more sex than normal so the likelihood of an early-cycle impregnation was increased.
| It has been termed ‘The Returning Soldier Effect', she announced. |
Now I have to admit, and many women I’ve known would agree with me, sex is not one of my areas of expertise, but I am a world authority on something called the bogus list, largely because I invented the concept. It arises when people who ought to know better start proffering dubious examples to buttress a false argument and works like this:
* Strong arguments generally don’t require examples
* Weak arguments can usually be provided with a decent list of examples
* False arguments need a bogus list of examples
This is useful to us Applied Epistemologists because as non-specialists
* We are unlikely to recognise when false arguments are being advanced by specialists
* But we are trained to recognise the signs when they are
* One of which is being presented with a bogus list of examples by specialists
* If they had a decent list, you may be sure they would know of them, being specialists
* The very fact they haven’t, indicates there aren’t any.
If there are no examples of whatever it is that is being presented to us, we can be pretty confident the whole thing is baloney. Hence, as soon as we spot a bogus list, we know a false argument is likely to be somewhere in the vicinity and we can mug up on the subject in order to identify it.
Hannah Fry is no mug. She knew somewhere in that teeming mind of hers that she had been lumbered with a not-very-persuasive list. But she’s an academic, trained to accept other specialists’ data on trust, so she said
In 1919 over three million British soldiers were demobilised
In 1944 there were large numbers of soldiers on temporary leave
In 1973 there was lots going on, there was a surge in sexual activity.
Well, I was there in 1973 and she wasn’t. I agree there was plenty of sexual activity but I was also there in 1972 and 1974 and nothing much had changed that I could see. I’m also a military historian in my spare time and while I can confirm 1919 is kosher, comparing it to 1944 is total tripe. So we have a list consisting of
1919: I’ll give you that one.
1944: Leave it out.
1973: Do me a favour.
One does not constitute a list. Will they go back to the drawing board? What, on my say-so? Do me a favour.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
