Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul Serup Answers Theodoric: Credibility of Authors and Book
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 151 of 211 (704499)
08-11-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by ramoss
08-11-2013 2:35 AM


Re: Suckers
He's credible because you say so?? So, when it comes to accusations against people, there really has to be confirmation of that accusation beyond 'he said, she said'
Where is it? It seems all this conspiracy stuff is based on someone that most people think is was a crack pot, but YOU proclaim is credible.
Who are the "most people?" Where is your evidence for this statement? What makes the Wikipedia article credible in your eyes? Why do you choose it over Chiniquy? You have no good reason, you just prefer to believe it.
Where is the independent verification of his claims?
Where is the independent verification of yours? There is no verification, just people running off at the mouth.
Yes, he's credible because I find him credible, just as you say your sources are credible for exactly the same reason, only you claim far more for them on the basis of nothing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ramoss, posted 08-11-2013 2:35 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 211 (704500)
08-11-2013 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
08-11-2013 5:22 AM


Re: Suckers
Sorry I absolutely disagree with your assessment of Chiniquy's writing. That's all you have, your assessment, though you try to make your assessment out to be something rather grand, your "properly critical eye?" How terribly funny. Sorry, my eye's the properly critical one.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 5:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 11:16 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 153 of 211 (704501)
08-11-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
08-11-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Suckers
Joseph P. George, just another guy with an axe to grind against Chiniquy, was answered by Serup in his book. It's Chiniquy's opponents who make stuff up. But as usual you prefer to believe his opponents, all you guys here. For no good reason. Why do you choose to believe George?
More to the point, Where's the evidence you all so love to claim? There is no evidence in that quote, it's all one man's description of events. What "known historical facts" are you talking about that Chiniquy supposedly got wrong?
Quote Chiniquy, quote facts from reliable source to demonstrate your claim that Chiniquy got them wrong. Come on, that's what's required here, right? Allegations don't cut it, and George isn't reliable anyway.
I'll let you know what Serup's book has to say when I've read it, God willing.
ABE: Serup does have a page on George's errors at his site:
On page 22 of this issue of the Journal of the Illinois Historical Society, George stated, At that time Lincoln was hired as defense attorney and was influential in producing a key witness from Chicago who exposed Spink as a perjurer. This presumably was regarding the fall term court action of 1856, because if it wasn’t, he would be even more incorrect.
George’s source was Charles Chiniquy’s autobiography, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, as the paper clearly shows. As I stated in my book: Here Professor George managed to make possibly as many as three mistakes in one sentence. First of all, Fifty Years did not state that Lincoln was influential in producing this key witness from Chicago. The witness in question was Philomene Moffat and it was another man, Narcisse Terrien, who independently contacted her and asked her to go to Urbana to testify. Lincoln was not aware of her existence until she showed up at his hotel door. Secondly, according to Chiniquy, she didn’t publicly expose anyone as a perjurer, as she didn’t end up being a witness, because Spink withdrew his charges and no more testimony was given. It appears that only Abraham Lincoln, Charles Chiniquy and his other lawyers, along with those on Spink’s side of the suit, that knew of the perjury before the case ended. Thirdly, if she had testified, she would have exposed Lebel as a perjurer, not Spink.
George's source was Chiniquy's own book, which he got wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 08-11-2013 8:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 08-11-2013 11:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-11-2013 1:39 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 211 (704502)
08-11-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
08-11-2013 10:39 AM


Re: Suckers
quote:
Sorry I absolutely disagree with your assessment of Chiniquy's writing. That's all you have, your assessment
Which is a good deal better than unquestioningly believing him because he says he's such a great guy.
quote:
though you try to make your assessment out to be something rather grand, your "properly critical eye?" How terribly funny. Sorry, my eye's the properly critical one.
Then let's see some actual critical analysis from you, rather than unquestioning belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 10:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 11:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 155 of 211 (704503)
08-11-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
08-11-2013 10:40 AM


Re: Suckers
The very posts that Paul Serup made here show that he is not credible, not writing history, not a historian and just another hate-monger.
Did you look at Message 28?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 10:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 156 of 211 (704504)
08-11-2013 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
08-11-2013 11:16 AM


Re: Suckers
Who said I believe him because of what he said about himself? Get things straight. I find him credible all around, based on my own powers of assessment of character and other factors, just as you choose to be critical of him instead and prefer your own powers of assessment over mine, imagine that.
WHAT "unquestioning belief" for crying out loud. I find the man's book credible, and all I've had time to do here is answer a million and one stupid objections based on nothing better than a desire to NOT find him credible, not one fact, not a shred of evidence, just a preference against him. Unquestioning DISBELIEF it sounds like to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 11:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 11:39 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 157 of 211 (704505)
08-11-2013 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
08-11-2013 11:24 AM


Re: Suckers
quote:
Who said I believe him because of what he said about himself?
You claimed that his writing alone was sufficient to judge his character - and let us not forget that this is a man pushing a wild conspiracy theory. What about his writing makes him so credible that you believe him to that degree? I asked for some actual analysis and you haven't provided any.
quote:
WHAT "unquestioning belief" for crying out loud. I find the man's book credible, and all I've had time to do here is answer a million and one stupid objections based on nothing better than a desire to NOT find him credible, not one fact, not a shred of evidence, just a preference against him. Unquestioning DISBELIEF it sounds like to me.
I would think that in the absence of any significant corroborating evidence disbelief is the correct and rational response to conspiracy theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 11:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 158 of 211 (704506)
08-11-2013 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by PaulK
08-11-2013 11:39 AM


Re: Suckers
The Jesuits had the reputation down the centuries of being accomplished assassins, though they are whitewashed today. Chiniquy merely observed that Jesuits in the courtroom when Lincoln won his case appeared to be rather unhappy and he warned Lincoln about it many times.
Then after the assassination he writes in his Chapter 61 that it was a Jesuit plot . (scroll down about a third of the page)
I'm sure you will just dismiss his testimony of course because you've already decided he's wrong based on nothing but empty prejudice.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 11:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 12:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 159 of 211 (704507)
08-11-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
08-11-2013 12:20 PM


Re: Suckers
quote:
The Jesuits had the reputation down the centuries of being accomplished assassins, though they are whitewashed today. Chiniquy merely observed that Jesuits in the courtroom when Lincoln won his case appeared to be rather unhappy and he warned Lincoln about it many times.
So, is it you or Chiniquy who somehow infers that this unhappiness - over a civil lawsuit settled out of court, with Chiniquy paying his own costs - was somehow sufficient to motivate an assassination ?
quote:
Then after the assassination he writes in his Chapter 61 that it was a Jesuit plot . I'm sure you will just dismiss his testimony of course because you've already decided he's wrong based on nothing but empty prejudice.
Given that Chiniquy would hardly be party to such a plot, surely we should not believe such a wild accusation without adequate evidence - which you don't have. So really you are just indulging in your usual inversion of the truth - it is YOUR prejudice that causes you to believe Chiniquy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 12:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22504
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 160 of 211 (704508)
08-11-2013 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
08-11-2013 10:40 AM


Re: Suckers
Hi Faith,
Is this to be your answer to everything, that everyone who finds Chiniquy unreliable has an axe to grind against Chiniquy?
Reading stuff by Paul Serup is just going to confuse you further. Consider how little sense it makes that George used Chiniquy to show Chiniquy wrong. He does quote Chiniquy, first providing Chiniquy's story, then giving the story provided by the facts.
George clearly states that his sources were court records and attorney notes, and he footnotes the Spink vs. Chiniquy file from the Illinois State Historical Library, which must be where these court records and attorney notes currently reside.
This is why historians find Chiniquy unreliable. His accounts differ markedly from known and well established historical fact. Reading Chiniquy one is struck by their fanciful and almost fantastical quality, too much for most to credit, but apparently not too much for those convinced snakes can talk and Catholicism is evil.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 10:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 2:12 PM Percy has replied
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 3:04 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 161 of 211 (704511)
08-11-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
08-11-2013 1:39 PM


Re: Suckers
In fairness, Percy, that is George's account of Chinquy's claims. The article may be found here (scanned pdf).
Interestingly, for all his supposed research, Serup doesn't point out any error in George's account of the facts of the case, which would seem to be rather more important.
It must also be said that Chinquy's account is still dubious to say the least. He claims that Phioomena Moffat went to Lebel, saying that she would expose Lebel as a perjuror. Lebel tried to buy her off but she refused. Lebel went to Spinks and insisted that he abandon the prosecution. All this rendered as (rather melodramatic) dialogue although Chinquy was clearly not present.
Of course in reality Lincoln persuaded the parties to agree to an out-of-court settlement and that was why the prosecution was withdrawn. But Chinquy does not mention even the existence of the agreement, let alone Lincoln's role in achieving it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-11-2013 1:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 2:52 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 08-11-2013 2:56 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 08-11-2013 3:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 211 (704512)
08-11-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by PaulK
08-11-2013 2:12 PM


Re: Suckers
Yes, Percy, that is GEORGE'S ERRONEOUS ACCOUNT OF CHINIQUY'S CLAIMS, not from an independent source, thanks for that much PaulK.
It must also be said that Chinquy's account is still dubious to say the least. He claims that Phioomena Moffat went to Lebel, saying that she would expose Lebel as a perjuror. Lebel tried to buy her off but she refused. Lebel went to Spinks and insisted that he abandon the prosecution. All this rendered as (rather melodramatic) dialogue although Chinquy was clearly not present.
And why is it that such suspicious nonsense "must be said?" The account of Moffat going to Lebel was TOLD Chiniquy as HE SAYS,
in Chapter 58, and he is passing on WHAT HE WAS TOLD, not making it up as you are implying. The source of his information was Narcisse Terrien.
Of course in reality Lincoln persuaded the parties to agree to an out-of-court settlement and that was why the prosecution was withdrawn. But Chinquy does not mention even the existence of the agreement, let alone Lincoln's role in achieving it.
Why on earth would Chiniquy have to mention the terms of that agreement? It's clear that the case was dismissed and there is no reason to doubt that it was dismissed because Moffat appeared and scared the accusers into withdrawing their case as Chiniquy recounts. The case was about slander of Spink but they were hearing testimony about Chiniquy's supposed immorality to discredit him further and Moffat's appearance put a stop to that and then the case was dismissed. Why make such a big deal out of such trivia? Because YOU have an axe to grind for some reason, as does Percy, as does everybody else here who is just straining for the slightest stupid excuse to join with Chiniquy's accusers. Bizarre but there it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 2:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 163 of 211 (704513)
08-11-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
08-10-2013 11:27 PM


Re: Suckers
Faith writes:
Who expects to be set upon by a pack of hyenas for merely stating your case?
I asked politely for evidence. I expected him to present the strongest part of his case. You admit yourself that what he presented was weak.
He has nobody but himself to blame for his lack of credibility.
Faith writes:
The evidence will be in his book, you aren't going to get it here.
He had his chance. He still does. An honest scholar would probably take advantage of the opportunity.
But by your own indictment, his target audience seems to be the already-convinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 08-10-2013 11:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 2:56 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 211 (704514)
08-11-2013 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by ringo
08-11-2013 2:54 PM


Re: Suckers
You flatter yourself that EvC is made up of anyone he would feel a need to try to convince. You flatter yourselves that you care about truth and evidence, you flatter yourselves that you represent the world's opinion, and the world's methods. If you do God help us all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 08-11-2013 2:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 08-11-2013 3:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22504
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 165 of 211 (704515)
08-11-2013 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by PaulK
08-11-2013 2:12 PM


Re: Suckers
PaulK writes:
In fairness, Percy, that is George's account of Chinquy's claims. The article may be found here (scanned pdf).
My message already contained a link to the article, I'm not sure why you would think I needed another.
Faith quotes Paul claiming that George was wrong to describe Chiniquy as claiming that Lincoln was influential in producing a key witness, but here are Chiniquy's own words entirely reinforcing this description. Note that the quoted portion is almost entirely words Chiniquy attributes to Lincoln:
Chiniquy writes:
Here is the simple but marvelous story, as told me by that great and good man, whom God had made the messenger of His mercies towards me: "As soon as Lebel had given his perjured testimony against you yesterday," said Mr. Lincoln, "one of the agents of the Chicago press telegraphed to some of the principal papers of Chicago: 'It is probable that Mr. Chiniquy will be condemned; for the testimony of the Rev. Mr Lebel seems to leave no doubt that he is guilty.' And the little Irish boys, to sell their papers, filled the streets with cries: 'Chiniquy will be hung! Chiniquy will be hung!' The Roman Catholics were so glad to hear that, that ten thousand extra copies have been sold. Among those who bought those papers was a friend of yours, called Terrien, who went to his wife and told her that you were to be condemned, and when the woman heard that, she said, 'It is too bad, for I know Mr. Chiniquy is not guilty.'
"'How do you know that?' said the husband. She answered: 'I was there when the priest Lebel made the plot, and promised to give his sister two eighties of good land if she would swear a false oath and accuse him of a crime which that woman said he had not even thought of with her.'
"'If it be so,' said Terrien, 'we cannot allow Mr. Chiniquy to be condemned. Come with me to Urbana.'
"But that woman being quite unwell, said to her husband, 'You know well I cannot go; but Miss Philomene Moffat was with me then. She knows every particular of that wicked plot as well as I do. She is well: go and take her to Urbana. There is no doubt that her testimony will prevent the condemnation of Mr. Chiniquy. Narcisse Terrien started immediately: and when you were praying God to come to your help, He was sending your deliverer at the full speed of the railroad cars. Miss Moffat has just given me the details of that diabolical plot. I have advised her not to show herself before the Court is opened. I will, then, send for her, and when she will have given, under oath, before the Court, the details she has just given me, I pity Spink with his perjured priests. As I told you, I would not be surprised if they were lynched: for there is a terrible excitement in town among many people, who from the beginning suspect that the priests have perjured themselves to destroy you. Now your suit is gained, and, to-morrow, you will have the greatest triumph a man ever got over his confounded foes. But you are in need of rest as well as myself. Good bye." After thanking God for that marvelous deliverance, I went to bed and took the needed rest."
So Lincoln requested that Terrien be sent for, but Terrien was ill and suggested Moffat instead be summoned, i.e., Lincoln influencing the obtaining of a key witness. (As an aside, throughout his book Chiniquy appears to have a remarkable memory for 25-year old conversations.)
PaulK writes:
Of course in reality Lincoln persuaded the parties to agree to an out-of-court settlement and that was why the prosecution was withdrawn. But Chinquy does not mention even the existence of the agreement, let alone Lincoln's role in achieving it.
This is what I've already been explaining to Faith over my last few posts.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2013 2:12 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 08-11-2013 3:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024