I'm not confusing anything. What I posted was a straight quote from Wikipedia supporting this author's historical knowledge. Apparently there are some who would disagree with your timeline assertions. As shocking as this might be, these folks are just as prominent as yourself-perhaps more so-in historical knowledge.
I really don’t waste my time with wikipedia much. After all the people who rely on it can’t tell the difference between 1309 and 1377.
Pity you don't "waste" your time with Wikipedia as it offers very good information on a variety of topics. The research done by others and checked by many might have saved you from making embarassing accusations and showing such a bias understanding of history.
As a starter you may wish to investigate of word "moron" that you so causally threw out with derision:
1. Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
One should first examine the log in their own eye before they rush to the twigs in others.
You wrote:
“I’m not confusing anything.”
You certainly are confusing truth with falsehood. Either you mistake 1309 for 1377 or you make the mistake that a quote about 1377 actually applies to 1309. There are no other possibilities. So, which is it?
“What I posted was a straight quote from Wikipedia supporting this author’s historical knowledge.”
Uh, no. You see 1377 is not 1309. What I said about all those years from 1309 until the 1370s was true, factual, and irrefutable. Thus, what Horton said was untrue. What you claimed about my supposed lack of knowledge of history was untrue as well. And your continued claim that 1377 is 1309 is also false.
Do you know that 1309 and 1377 are two different years? Seriously, I have to ask that because you essentially are claiming they are the same year and that everything which happened between them is the same as what happened after 1377 - which is logically impossible.
“Apparently there are some who would disagree with your timeline assertions.”
No reputable historian would. Again, the quote you posted said 1377 and not 1309. Thus, I was right and Horton was wrong - and you were wrong too. Again, just to make sure you know this now: 1377 IS NOT 1309. The two years are not the same.
“As shocking as this might be, these folks are just as prominent as yourself-perhaps more so-in historical knowledge.”
Again, no. 1377 is still NOT 1309. You posted something about 1377 AND NOT 1309. Your own quote goes AGAINST what Horton said. That’s what makes this so funny. Horton got it wrong. You defended him by posting a quote that shows Horton was wrong and apparently you can’t even see that.
Again, 1377 is NOT 1309.
“Pity you don’t “waste” your time with Wikipedia as it offers very good information on a variety of topics.”
The problem here is that the user is posting something from Wikipedia that goes against what he actually is claiming: Again, 1377 is NOT 1309. There are 68 years between those two years. You do realize that, right?
“The research done by others and checked by many might have saved you from making embarassing accusations and showing such a bias understanding of history.”
LOL! The “research done” shows I was right from the beginning since what you quoted says 1377 and not 1309. You apparently cannot tell the difference between two entirely different years in two entirely different decades.
“As a starter you may wish to investigate of word “moron” that you so causally threw out with derision”.
No, thanks, I have used the term “moron” perfectly and appropriately in this thread.
“I find the author to be neither “notably stupid” nor “lacking in good judgment”.”
Coming from someone who apparently can’t tell the difference between 1309 and 1377 that is a meaningless conclusion.
“Now if you would care to explain how you came to the conclusion based upon his dates, which are supported by other scholars, that this author is a “moron” by this definition;”
You have made this false claim now several times: “his dates, which are supported by other scholars”. Until the time (which is never) that 1309 and 1377 become one and the same year and all the decades between them somehow evaporate, Horton’s claim will be false and no reputable historian agrees with him.
“then I’m sure we would all delight in hearing your wisdom and benefiting from your fine education. But you’ve offered no scholarly rebuttal to the author’s timeline. Personally, if I was your teacher, I’d give you a D-.”
Well, when you can tell me when 1377 became 1309 let me know. You see you’re arguing that those two years are the same when they are not. How can anyone who does not accept the fact that those are two different years be considered rational?
“One should first examine the log in their own eye before they rush to the twigs in others.”
Beams, twigs, splinters or whatever other size chunks of wood you want to talk about won’t change the fact that 1309 is NOT 1377. Horton was wrong. You are wrong. I am right: 1377 is not 1309. That will never change.