GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-05 > 0990155040


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Holy Blood, Holy Grail
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:04:00 -0600
References: <01c0deef$5646bb80$LocalHost@fti/62hzcyc>


Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote:
>
> what permits you to see inside their devious little minds
> and know that they were hoping to fool the gullible?

ESP

But really, I never said that this was the case. I only
presented it as one of several options for explaining the
production of a work which is so reality-challenged.

> because that's what you would have done in their place?

I let this pass the first time you dropped it, but on the off
chance you took the wrong lesson from that, I will not ignore it
this time. You will find that insulting my integrity is not a
productive means of winning friends and influencing people. It
tends to render me less helpful. (Oh, and I have a long memory.)

> Their book is in the history section, because it's 98%
> careful historical research, and 2% interesting theories...

No. This book is in the history section because that is how the
publisher decided they could most productively market it. As to
the historical makeup of the work, I don't think I agree with
your evaluation, but even so, one could say the same of a work
which traced back 50 generations, but in order to make the most
critical connection, made William the Conqueror the son of Mickey
Mouse, the son of Cleopatra (and on back). It is not a
percentage game. Each connection (and especially the
novel/crucial/sensational ones) must withstand critical
examination.

> there is no intention to trompery,

Now it is you who has the ESP?

> Pick up a copy at the library & read it;

Been there, done that.

> there is contemporary as well as ancient evidence, & a lot of
> good solid work.

That there is contemporary and ancient evidence in no way insures
the quality of the conclusions reached, or even forced, from that
data. If there is a lot of good solid work there, then they have
done themselves a great disservice by disguising it as a sloppy
and uncritical attempt at sensationalism.

> The original research was done as part of a BBC documentary
> investigation.

You throw out those three magical letters as if they are supposed
to wow me into submission. The BBC also (as we have seen)
investigated this earlier documentary, and found that they had
been taken in by a known scam artist. So the (first)
BBC-supported investigation either failed to detect an obvious
fraud, or committed one against the BBC. Either way, bringing
their name into it in no helps the case.

taf

This thread: