“Shame on you for claiming a PhD and then not backing it up.”
No shame at all. You claimed to love history. I see no evidence of that and certainly no familiarity with it or the methods of studying it. What would be shameful would be for me to now claim I don’t have a PhD in history when I do. You know, kind of like how you posted a statement and then said you never said it? Yeah, shameful. Really shameful.
“Until you do otherwise I consider your claim to a PhD in history as a lie said to impress people online.”
Great. And I’ll lose exactly no sleep over that. But I know I didn’t lie, and so do some other posters here who know me well. On the other hand, people will look through these posts and see you posted this statement: “This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church,” and are now denying that you did so. Gee, who is telling the truth here?
“I know PhD candidates when I see one and Sir, you are not one in the way you write.”
I am not a candidate. I was a candidate. Now I am just a PhD. See, a person is usually considered a PhD candidate after finishing their exams and all their course work. I finished all of that YEARS before I finally got around to finishing my dissertation. I’m a PhD, not a PhD candidate. In the same way, for a number of years I could have referred to myself as ABD (All-but-Dissertation; or All-but-Done!). Now, however, and for some years, I have been just a PhD.
“My apologies will be forthcoming and public if you verify your PhD.”
Your apologies are meaningless to me.
You wrote:
“This is laid the groundwork for the resentment that long simmered against the Latin church.” in post #51.
Now you’re denying you ever said it: “It is not my claim but it is the Moravians own claim.” in post #57.
“My statement regarding the local disfavor towards the Latin church was a supposition based on the fact that a bloody religious rebellion was quelled there.”
Ohhhhhhh, so now it’s a supposition.
So, in the hierarchy of evidence you went from:
1) posting an unsubstantiated claim
2) calling it a plausible scenario when you could find no evidence at all for it
3) to denying you posted the claim in the first place and claiming it belonged to the sect in question
4) to now saying it is a “supposition based on the fact”
This is hilarious!!! This is like watching Gibbs trying to explain away Obama’s plain-as-day comments!!!
“If you had earned a PhD you would know what a supposition was.”
I know exactly what a supposition is in historical research. In history, without corroborating evidence, a supposition is WORTHLESS
I will repeat that I consider your claim of a PhD to be a boastful lie.
You are engaging in pettifoggery.
I reworded the statements made by the Moravians themselves to describe their origins.
You have no evidence of their claim of origins (evangelized by Greeks and resentful of the later Latin imposition) being in error.
My supposition based on the historical personage of John Hus and what followed is proof enough to my thesis that the Slavic people of Moravia chaffed under the Papal yoke.