|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 22, 2016 15:19:02 GMT -5
Fokker Triplane 1915  Apparently the 'rotary engine' (not coal and not steam) ran on a refined oil product. And yes, it really was flying in 1915 You are more eager to insult than to follow the discussion. You misinterpreted what I wrote. The point was that oil fueled and drove the second phase of the Industrial Revolution. I didn't realize that you are the arbiter of current scholarship, either. So where is the insult in that post? You seem ever so eager to take offence. Would you like to make a formal complaint? See here: gatesofbabylon.com/thread/2040/submit-complaints |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 17:53:17 GMT -5
Check out Brenan, Muir, and Butterworth when you get the chance. The timeframe of the Industrial Revolution has changed. You really don't need to be so antagonistic. It's nothing more than looking through the lens of the current zeitgeist. Re-interpretation is the preserve of those without an original thought between their ears. We recently had a load of rubbish on that basis on Mary Seacole. Overhyped and blown out of all proportion - because today, #blacklivesmatter So the history has to match the current view. It's political, not academic. The facts remain the same. 1760-1840. Now if you had said something like the nuclear age began in the 1930s you could've be right. That's not a fact. Eras are often redefined. They are not "facts." An era is a period of time defined by scholars. |
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726 
|
Post by Jessiealan on Oct 22, 2016 18:08:35 GMT -5
You are more eager to insult than to follow the discussion. You misinterpreted what I wrote. The point was that oil fueled and drove the second phase of the Industrial Revolution. I didn't realize that you are the arbiter of current scholarship, either. So where is the insult in that post? You seem ever so eager to take offence. Would you like to make a formal complaint? See here: gatesofbabylon.com/thread/2040/submit-complaintsI do not see anything close to the insults that fly on these message boards, Ariel. It looks more like you are trying to get personal attention. |
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Oct 22, 2016 18:13:28 GMT -5
Fret, you go out of your way to call me an idiot at every turn. I won't passively accept it. (Not from you; not from anyone.) I don't invite it. If you have a problem with me personally, you should pm me so that we can discuss it. I would like you to be more respectful. Oh I see. You ARE looking for personal attention. Please take this out of the Daily. |
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Oct 22, 2016 22:48:50 GMT -5
You are incorrect. The second phase of the Industrial Revolution began in the mid 19th century according to current scholarship. I'm quite correct. Current thinking is clouded by anachronistic judgement - it's political not academic. The term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83). How does your new improved version of history tell that? But as he died in 83 he could not write about what folllowed, you can argue that the industrial revolution continues today as the technologocal phase of the the industrial revolttion. Industry is the production of goods or related services within an economy and the revolution in that is being powered by technology. Indeed this post is, in a way a part of the industrial revolution!! |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 23, 2016 2:48:43 GMT -5
It's nothing more than looking through the lens of the current zeitgeist. Re-interpretation is the preserve of those without an original thought between their ears. We recently had a load of rubbish on that basis on Mary Seacole. Overhyped and blown out of all proportion - because today, #blacklivesmatter So the history has to match the current view. It's political, not academic. The facts remain the same. 1760-1840. Now if you had said something like the nuclear age began in the 1930s you could've be right. That's not a fact. Eras are often redefined. They are not "facts." An era is a period of time defined by scholars. eras re defined.....isn't every thing being redefined.. however what is known are many dates ..so to save any more argument lets stick to dates...and then every one is happy the present occupation with redefinintion of history ..is not set in stone ..many times its just to make a historical longer or shorter in time frame..to diminish or enlarge to suit ..in most cases ideology or political frame to suit this or that historian and students we[uk] get an awful lot of nonsence on revisionism mostly spouted by those who wish to twist history to their own political agenda ...real scholars demolish their arguments with facts and dates quite easily one small addendum """"An era is a period of time defined by scholars"""". and when did scholars ever agree ? why is why there are schools of thought |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 4:18:27 GMT -5
That's not a fact. Eras are often redefined. They are not "facts." An era is a period of time defined by scholars. eras re defined.....isn't every thing being redefined.. however what is known are many dates ..so to save any more argument lets stick to dates...and then every one is happy the present occupation with redefinintion of history ..is not set in stone ..many times its just to make a historical longer or shorter in time frame..to diminish or enlarge to suit ..in most cases ideology or political frame to suit this or that historian and students we[uk] get an awful lot of nonsence on revisionism mostly spouted by those who wish to twist history to their own political agenda ...real scholars demolish their arguments with facts and dates quite easily one small addendum """"An era is a period of time defined by scholars"""". and when did scholars ever agree ? why is why there are schools of thought Some dates are set in stone. They become fact (at least until otherwise proven.) An era is a bit more plastic. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 23, 2016 5:41:56 GMT -5
why7 be more plastic/elastic when dates are proven
1066.....stand alone fact
1939-1945 couldn't be clearer
Hiroshima.. Nagasaki 1945
as I said I will go along with known facts....as for eras again they are a time frame usually backed up with factual evidence ..rather than movable boundries
it would not be untrue to say the 1900 hundreds was an era of warfare and rapid invention
all the facts of that century are available ....its hardly a statement which is deniable no matter how revisionist one could be inclined
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 23, 2016 5:57:42 GMT -5
It's nothing more than looking through the lens of the current zeitgeist. Re-interpretation is the preserve of those without an original thought between their ears. We recently had a load of rubbish on that basis on Mary Seacole. Overhyped and blown out of all proportion - because today, #blacklivesmatter So the history has to match the current view. It's political, not academic. The facts remain the same. 1760-1840. Now if you had said something like the nuclear age began in the 1930s you could've be right. That's not a fact. Eras are often redefined. They are not "facts." An era is a period of time defined by scholars. Like the Anthropocene??? History is suffering revisionism. Suffering is the word and it also includes the recent past. And as for immigration – it was all the fault of the Poles. “I think we underestimated the level of immigration from Poland which had a big effect on people,” said Ed Miliband.
But hang on a second. Labour came to office in 1997 and Poland did not join the EU until 2004. Yet whereas in 1996, net immigration to the UK was 40,000, by 2003 it was 150,000. It is now about 250,000. As even a cursory glance at immigration graphs will show, the beginnings of this rapid rise long predated the accession to the EU of the former Soviet bloc countries of eastern Europe.www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8789777/The-Left-is-rewriting-Britains-immigration-history.htmlLike I said before, it's political “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” - George Orwell This post has been certified as insult free by Donald Trump |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 23, 2016 6:00:02 GMT -5
Fret, you go out of your way to call me an idiot at every turn. I won't passively accept it. (Not from you; not from anyone.) I don't invite it. If you have a problem with me personally, you should pm me so that we can discuss it. I would like you to be more respectful. Oh I see. You ARE looking for personal attention. Please take this out of the Daily. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 23, 2016 6:18:08 GMT -5
current scholarshipI'm quite correct. Current thinking is clouded by anachronistic judgement - it's political not academic. The term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83). How does your new improved version of history tell that? But as he died in 83 he could not write about what folllowed, you can argue that the industrial revolution continues today as the technologocal phase of the the industrial revolttion. Industry is the production of goods or related services within an economy and the revolution in that is being powered by technology. Indeed this post is, in a way a part of the industrial revolution!! FFS Arnold Toynbee (1852–1883) Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) 1840, according to the calendar, came well before 1852 Ergo he lived after the events, not before. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 23, 2016 6:35:31 GMT -5
why7 be more plastic/elastic when dates are proven 1066.....stand alone fact 1939-1945 couldn't be clearer Hiroshima.. Nagasaki 1945 as I said I will go along with known facts....as for eras again they are a time frame usually backed up with factual evidence ..rather than movable boundries it would not be untrue to say the 1900 hundreds was an era of warfare and rapid invention all the facts of that century are available ....its hardly a statement which is deniable no matter how revisionist one could be inclined I look forward to hearing the new version of these events.... The Battle of Agincourt, a major English victory in the Hundred Years' War. The battle took place on Friday, 25th October 1415 (Saint Crispin's Day), near Agincourt, in northern France. 43AD Claudius invades and conquers Britannia 5th November 1604 Guy Fawkes arrested for Treason I suppose they could even argue that this is still the Classical era as popularised by the ancient Greeks, after all we still use trigonometry, Pi etc etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 23, 2016 6:51:14 GMT -5
"""“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” - George Orwell""""
and never were words truer and never has the urge to destroy peoples been more stated and obvious.
those new to this message board will have missed oodles of information.. real statements coming out of the EU and others... making it quite clear as to the ultimate political aim of not only the EU but the end result wanted by the likes of George Sorus..and who elected him ? no one but he consistently proves his agenda and that of others many un-named and certainly unaccountable
its not a conspiracy theory either.. neither is it hate of others..or feelings of superiority or even ignorance [words so easily thrown at those who voted out of Europe]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 9:19:41 GMT -5
why7 be more plastic/elastic when dates are proven 1066.....stand alone fact 1939-1945 couldn't be clearer Hiroshima.. Nagasaki 1945 as I said I will go along with known facts....as for eras again they are a time frame usually backed up with factual evidence ..rather than movable boundries it would not be untrue to say the 1900 hundreds was an era of warfare and rapid invention all the facts of that century are available ....its hardly a statement which is deniable no matter how revisionist one could be inclined I look forward to hearing the new version of these events.... The Battle of Agincourt, a major English victory in the Hundred Years' War. The battle took place on Friday, 25th October 1415 (Saint Crispin's Day), near Agincourt, in northern France. 43AD Claudius invades and conquers Britannia 5th November 1604 Guy Fawkes arrested for Treason I suppose they could even argue that this is still the Classical era as popularised by the ancient Greeks, after all we still use trigonometry, Pi etc etc etc Eras change. Eras are plastic. Example: You find a fossil that falls into a category, but defies the previously understood era of that find; therefore the era may have to be redefined. Nobody contests the dates that nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. Nobody contests that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 (although people do dispute the specific date.) Events and eras are different. |
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Oct 23, 2016 11:58:28 GMT -5
"""“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” - George Orwell"""" and never were words truer and never has the urge to destroy peoples been more stated and obvious. those new to this message board will have missed oodles of information.. real statements coming out of the EU and others... making it quite clear as to the ultimate political aim of not only the EU but the end result wanted by the likes of George Sorus..and who elected him ? no one but he consistently proves his agenda and that of others many un-named and certainly unaccountable its not a conspiracy theory either.. neither is it hate of others..or feelings of superiority or even ignorance [words so easily thrown at those who voted out of Europe] Agree. KP for the Orwell quote. |
|
Alpha 
