[RunningWolf]

Look forget about what AIG says. Or is that the one thing AIG says that you agree with, is that it?

Since no one knows for sure except Darwin and maybe Lady Hope, it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not, it all depends who's word you want to take.

Now what you consider to be defensible or charitable is irrelevant the historical factualness of Darwin's recantation, and addressing that would be a waste of my time anyway so I wont even get into that.

Wolf

[VadeRetro]

So anything anybody ever said is a "historical fact?" Are you sure you're not a liberal?

[highball]

Since no one knows for sure except Darwin and maybe Lady Hope, it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not, it all depends who's word you want to take.

Wow.

Just... wow. I need to look at that again.

it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not

You believe that "historical facts" are in some way a matter of interpretation?

It shouldn't surprise me that you have a rather fluid definition of the word "fact", I guess. What surprises me is that you'd actually admit that.

[VadeRetro]

Since no one knows for sure except Darwin and maybe Lady Hope, it is equally "historical fact" whether this happened or not, it all depends who's word you want to take.

The Lady Hope story is a published account containing identifiable innacuracies. The identification of "Lady Hope" with a particular real lady was done later. It assumes the story was not simply a hoax.

The author was identified only as a "consecrated English woman", "Lady Hope", but research by L.G. Pine a former editor of Burke's Peerage found no other Lady Hope other than Elizabeth Hope who was adult in the 1880s and still alive in 1915.

This is your idea of a historical fact. A "could maybe with a few changes have happened" event with a "could have been" author who never clearly identified herself. "Historical fact."

In other words, you consult your convenience first and evidence, if any, second when deciding what is fact. Sure you're not a liberal?