Bob-

Just because I am wholeheartedly loyal to you does not mean I give you permission to abuse me like a two-bit traffic cop.

I guess you may have seen red over the word “drivel,” but it referred only to Dan Brown and the goofy sources he reworked. Brown and they are goofy because they get basic historical facts wrong in outlandishly humorous ways. But to be fair to Brown, he published the book as fiction.

By the way, it seems that the consensus is that (Dan) Brown actually did write the book, although basing it heavily on others as research. I don’t think you care about that, though.

I’ll explain below.

———————

You said here:

To ME, and maybe not to him, Brown made a point I cogitate about.
I read the Da Vinci Code and realized that accepted history still obsesses on Constantine. In the Code, he was supposed to have unilaterally changed the whole Church and made it wholly male-dominated. That reflects the usual accepted history doctrine that there was a united Church that was perverted when Constantine saw those words, not a Cross, in the sky.
But one man didn’t do all that, whether in accepted history or in the Da Vinci Code. My thesis, which is open to correction, is that Constantine was practical politician of his own time.
I stressed the importance of realizing one’s POINT OF VIEW. Brutus is right that Brown was an engineer and a mathematician, so he looked at things from that standpoint. That is an important observation. My background is power politics, so naturally I look at things that way.
What Lawrence…

Here you say “Brown made a point” and immediately talk about the Da Vinci Code, authored by Brown, Dan Brown. Why would anything think you meant a different author in a different book?

You should know that I am on your side. This is why I wrote: “This is embarrassing to me.” Obviously if I weren’t on your side, it wouldn’t be embarrassing to me. This is also why I waited until your post was down the page before I pointed out the mistake. I thought you would appreciate the comment, but I didn’t want to call attention to a mistake (or proofreading error?) at the top.

You invited such comments with: “My thesis, which is open to correction,” although I don’t think I doubt that particular thesis.

So why the ad hominems? You said:

This does not make you look too bright.
This is a matter of where you are coming from. You are very upset with my version of history. Talk about what actually is bothering you. THAT might be productive.

This is not like you at all. Is it?

ME:

It’s a lot like me.

First of all, I read the Da Vinci Code and didn’t remember the author. I had that problemi n grad school. People would refer to a a thesis by the name ofhte author and I was lost, thought I remembered the thesis very well.

You told me stop this review of my version of history because it made me look like a fool, so I slammed back. Then you slamemd back at me. Nordics value truth over diplomacy.

Yes, I am complimented that you took my comments so seriously. It is frustrating to me when I give someone a compliment and they do not appreciate it because it doesn’t have the chocolate coating expected in non-Moot discourse. They spend all their timebeing pissed off about the hard things I say and never appreciate the good things I seem to say so grudingly.

I know Pain. He is a tough yung bird. He can take the nastiest abuse from an anti-white and move calmly on to the next point. That drives them CRAZY!

But if you are in the rare and hard-earned position of being someone he respects, you can get to him. I am glorying more in that than I am worrying about offending him. Outside this seminar, that would be more alien than the little green men.