Now reading (The Book Thread)

[river]

Screenshot: take a look at the final paragraph and the page number.

Your ISBN # is bogus. Amazon site in Canada and the US does not work. Oh it does as an accounting text in Canada.

Anyway in my book it is page 19.

So your point ?

By the way; take a GOOD HARD READ , read ; as in read the full context ; of the final paragraph; over and over again ; until you get Graham's point.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your ISBN # is bogus.

Really?
Then what's this? Or this? Or this?

Anyway in my book it is page 19.

So you admit that what I quoted IS in your copy?

So your point ?

Oh, the point?
You: This book which I have read has nothing to do with " spaceships " or the like.
You lied.

 

[river]

Really?
Then what's this? Or this? Or this?

Reissue copy

So you admit that what I quoted IS in your copy?

Obviously

Oh, the point?
You: This book which I have read has nothing to do with " spaceships " or the like.
You lied.

No I didn't lie ; read the context that surrounds " spaceships " ; or is that to hard for you ?

You are miss leading ; deliberately; consciously; Graham's thinking and point.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Reissue copy

So what?
You claimed that the ISBN was bogus - that's clearly not the case.

Obviously

Then you should have said that first, rather than "nothing about aliens" and "Where are you getting this nonsense?".

No I didn't lie ; read the context that surrounds " spaceships " ; or is that to hard for you ?

Yet there IS mention of "spaceships and the like".

 

[river]

So what?
You claimed that the ISBN was bogus - that's clearly not the case.

The number is clearly not from the original book.

Yet there IS mention of "spaceships and the like".

Sure

But Graham doesn't go along with this theory at all ; His thinking ; pushes this aside. And looks at an advanced beings which were Human.

 

[river]

So you admit that what I quoted IS in your copy?

Obviously

Then you should have said that first, rather than "nothing about aliens" and "Where are you getting this nonsense?".

What nonsense?

 

[Dywyddyr]

The number is clearly not from the original book.

"Clearly not from the original book" isn't the same as "bogus".
Right, the one I gave isn't from the original book.
Yet what do we find?
The number you gave:
9780385258289
Displaying page 1 of 1

• Fingerprints of the Gods: The Quest For Earth's Lost Civilization
  0385258283, Graham Hancock , Doubleday Canada, 1998-06-01

And
the number I gave:
0-517-88729-0
Displaying page 1 of 1

• Fingerprints of the Gods
  0517887290, Graham Hancock , Three Rivers Press, 1996-04-02

(Numbers checked here).
But, obviously, a book printed TWO YEARS EARLIER than the one you're using is "less original".

Sure
But Graham doesn't go along with this theory at all

Beside the point: they're in the book and that's what James remembered.

And looks at an advanced beings which were Human.

Yup, he rejects one set of drivel and makes up his own.

What nonsense?

Um, I was quoting you. Post #565.

 

[river]

Yup, he rejects one set of drivel and makes up his own.

How would you know what Graham is talking about ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

How would you know what Graham is talking about ?

Because I own the book and have read it.

How clever of you to ignore the rest of my post... I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything different.

 

[river]

Because I own the book and have read it.

How clever of you to ignore the rest of my post... I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything different.

I see ; you have read the book ; good ; care to discuss any part of the book you disagree with?

 

[Dywyddyr]

care to discuss any part of the book you disagree with?

Because that's easier than discussing the fact you've made sh*t up and posted it as fact?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
care to discuss any part of the book you disagree with?

Because that's easier than discussing the fact you've made sh*t up and posted it as fact?

Or because it's easier for you ; dywddyr; to harp on and on about what was not made up. By me .

The context in which your claims are surrounded by makes your claims nit-picky to say the least.

So if it makes you feel better ; continue

I hope however we could just discuss this book ; in all its pages ; or those you; dywdyr; want to discuss.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Or because it's easier for you ; dywddyr; to harp on and on about what was not made up. By me .

So my ISBN being bogus was NOT made up by you?
The ISBN that I gave referred to a book that isn't the "original" (despite being published two years earlier than the one you have)?
Etc...

 

[river]

So my ISBN being bogus was NOT made up by you?
The ISBN that I gave referred to a book that isn't the "original" (despite being published two years earlier than the one you have)?
Etc...

Two years later; yours is 1996 ; mine is 1995

Well what can I say ; put the ISBN# through Chapters and Amazon ; you get what I said before. What can I say other than what I said.

 

[river]

So when dywddr ; can we move on and discuss the context of the book ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Two years later; yours is 1996 ; mine is 1995

Actually no: as post # 607 shows.
While the CONTENT of your book may well have been published FIRST in 1995 the EDITION (or printing) of the book itself wasn't done until '98.
And, as I also stated in the post where I first gave quotes, mine also claims 1995 for the content.
PS: 1995-1996 is one year.

Well what can I say ; put the ISBN# through Chapters and Amazon ; you get what I said before. What can I say other than what I said.

For a start you could admit that made up the statement about mine not being "the original".
And also admit that you checked only two sources and gave up as soon as they confirmed your mistaken view.
Amazon.com gives this, Amazon Canada (contrary to your claim) gives this.

So when dywddr ; can we move on and discuss the context of the book ?

Not the thread for it, and I see no reason to discuss anything with a demonstrated liar.

 

[river]

Actually no: as post # 607 shows.
While the CONTENT of your book may well have been published FIRST in 1995 the EDITION (or printing) of the book itself wasn't done until '98.
And, as I also stated in the post where I first gave quotes, mine also claims 1995 for the content.
PS: 1995-1996 is one year.


For a start you could admit that made up the statement about mine not being "the original".
And also admit that you checked only two sources and gave up as soon as they confirmed your mistaken view.
Amazon.com gives this, Amazon Canada (contrary to your claim) gives this.


Not the thread for it, and I see no reason to discuss anything with a demonstrated liar.

You know dud; whoops ; dywyddyr ; that in the end we will get to the book content.

 

[paddoboy]

You know dud; whoops ; dywyddyr ; that in the end we will get to the book content.

Really? Typical arrogant brashness.
Perhaps if you had the courage to admit you were wrong?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You know dud; whoops ; dywyddyr ; that in the end we will get to the book content.

No point.
Every time we have engaged in a discussion about what is written in a book (of this ilk) that we've both read you have
A) shown that you've failed to bother checking its veracity,
B) seriously misunderstand large portions of it,
C) and argued in the face of "facts" given in the book that your interpretation is the correct one.
D) failed to read around the subject (i.e. all you "know" is what is in that book, and have no idea of the larger picture of even woo topics).
You have persistently taken the attitude that science is wrong and that anyone who "bucks the trend" is automatically 100% reliable and 100% correct (within your personal misunderstanding of the text).

 

[river]

No point.
Every time we have engaged in a discussion about what is written in a book (of this ilk) that we've both read you have
A) shown that you've failed to bother checking its veracity,
B) seriously misunderstand large portions of it,
C) and argued in the face of "facts" given in the book that your interpretation is the correct one.
D) failed to read around the subject (i.e. all you "know" is what is in that book, and have no idea of the larger picture of even woo topics).
You have persistently taken the attitude that science is wrong and that anyone who "bucks the trend" is automatically 100% reliable and 100% correct (within your personal misunderstanding of the text).

Give examples from A to D

Science is wrong ? Depends on the Science; and the science presented perspective.

I will disagree where I think it is warranted ; now if I disagree where I disagree ; that is science ; exploring ideas .