Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
You know what they say about making an assumption. You make an ass out of you, and Umption.
You don't go to the library for news. I'm sure you know this.
Secondly, the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with difficult tasks.
Fourthly, I have no idea what you are saying when you talk about googling the question I posted. Furthermore, who is to say the people I ask aren't all using the internet for reasearch themselves? Then you have the multi-core, super cyborg brain. Much better.
Any question. When I google the same question, one of the results will point to the forum you just asked the question on.
So, all of your results will be one of many results I get back when I google. Thanks.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.
In response to your "challenge," I would first re-iterate my own statement, which was "the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
One such issue about which one is unlikely to find any really good information on the internets is "To what extent was the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England affected by remnants (if any) of the Romano-British peoples?"
This is a subject that prompts fierce debate, mostly because there is no good answer (as of yet), and the issue implicates race, class, and religion. To even begin to be able to address this issue, one must have a broad knowledge of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, Kingship and nobility in the "Dark ages," the history of the Church, the history of the Irish Christian Church, and the current state of knowledge concerning the Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain after the Roman pullout in 410. That is just scratching the surface. None of these things can be adequately studied via the googles or Wikipedia.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
You remind me of the little suck-up in A Christmas Story, who was Scutt Farkus's sychophant. Cute little guy, but did the dirty work for Scutt.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.
In response to your "challenge," I would first re-iterate my own statement, which was "the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
One such issue about which one is unlikely to find any really good information on the internets is "To what extent was the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England affected by remnants (if any) of the Romano-British peoples?"
This is a subject that prompts fierce debate, mostly because there is no good answer (as of yet), and the issue implicates race, class, and religion. To even begin to be able to address this issue, one must have a broad knowledge of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, Kingship and nobility in the "Dark ages," the history of the Church, the history of the Irish Christian Church, and the current state of knowledge concerning the Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain after the Roman pullout in 410. That is just scratching the surface. None of these things can be adequately studied via the googles or Wikipedia.
If that topic is 'fiercely debated', I can almost guarantee that 99% of that debate is either happening on, or available on the internet.
And, because the subject is so esoteric, the bulk of the information will probably be good quality expert opinion and argument.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.
In response to your "challenge," I would first re-iterate my own statement, which was "the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
One such issue about which one is unlikely to find any really good information on the internets is "To what extent was the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England affected by remnants (if any) of the Romano-British peoples?"
This is a subject that prompts fierce debate, mostly because there is no good answer (as of yet), and the issue implicates race, class, and religion. To even begin to be able to address this issue, one must have a broad knowledge of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, Kingship and nobility in the "Dark ages," the history of the Church, the history of the Irish Christian Church, and the current state of knowledge concerning the Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain after the Roman pullout in 410. That is just scratching the surface. None of these things can be adequately studied via the googles or Wikipedia.
If that topic is 'fiercely debated', I can almost guarantee that 99% of that debate is either happening on, or available on the internet.
And, because the subject is so esoteric, the bulk of the information will probably be good quality expert opinion and argument.
Rooperi, with all due respect, how can you "guarantee" that 99% of that debate is happening on, or available on the internet? What knowledge do you have of Anglo-Saxon history or those who study it? If you have any, let's talk!
The subject is not really esoteric, by the nature of it involving the history of a former superpower and also Christianity. Esoteric would be more like the eighteenth-century tribal religious practices of some obscure Papua New Guinea peoples that no longer exist.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
You remind me of the little suck-up in A Christmas Story, who was Scutt Farkus's sychophant. Cute little guy, but did the dirty work for Scutt.
before sockpuppets, there was grover dill
Yes! That's him. Grover Dill and Scut Farkus -- a couple of bullies who were actually a couple of losers and who wanted to take it out on everyone else. Thanks.
I have NO knowledge of the subject, it's esoteric
. And outside my frame of interest. If there is fierce debate, people want their opinions heard by the largest possible audience. That audience is staring at computer monitors. ALL debate nowadays is happenning through mass/social media.
Serious people tend to stay away from mass/social media.
Serious people tend to stay away from mass/social media.
I dont even know how to respond to that without sounding insulting. Geez.....
Well they do.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.
In response to your "challenge," I would first re-iterate my own statement, which was "the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
One such issue about which one is unlikely to find any really good information on the internets is "To what extent was the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England affected by remnants (if any) of the Romano-British peoples?"
This is a subject that prompts fierce debate, mostly because there is no good answer (as of yet), and the issue implicates race, class, and religion. To even begin to be able to address this issue, one must have a broad knowledge of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, Kingship and nobility in the "Dark ages," the history of the Church, the history of the Irish Christian Church, and the current state of knowledge concerning the Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain after the Roman pullout in 410. That is just scratching the surface. None of these things can be adequately studied via the googles or Wikipedia.
So difficult to find that it almost took me 4 seconds of googling to find a source.
https://archive.org/stream/earlybritain16790gut/16790-0.txt
Skipping down to chapter 9 for some immediate relevance.
If you honestly think this is the type of thing you wont find on the internet, then you are an internet newbie. Give me a challenge.
I suspect, by the way, that I am not alone here in knowing nothing about this topic. If I was interested, i could multiply my knowledge 1,000 fold by reading that link, more than enough to put me at a level of knwledge where no one in my circle of friends would have the least clue what i am talking about if I started expounding on it (though one friend at least shares my curiosity and i would have little diifculty getting him interested if I was so inclined). Like I said, pretty esoteric.
Serious people tend to stay away from mass/social media.
What is your definition of mass media?
Serious people tend to stay away from mass/social media.
What is your definition of mass media?
yeah...my defintion would be "internet forums"!
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.
In response to your "challenge," I would first re-iterate my own statement, which was "the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
One such issue about which one is unlikely to find any really good information on the internets is "To what extent was the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England affected by remnants (if any) of the Romano-British peoples?"
This is a subject that prompts fierce debate, mostly because there is no good answer (as of yet), and the issue implicates race, class, and religion. To even begin to be able to address this issue, one must have a broad knowledge of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, Kingship and nobility in the "Dark ages," the history of the Church, the history of the Irish Christian Church, and the current state of knowledge concerning the Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain after the Roman pullout in 410. That is just scratching the surface. None of these things can be adequately studied via the googles or Wikipedia.
So difficult to find that it almost took me 4 seconds of googling to find a source.
https://archive.org/stream/earlybritain16790gut/16790-0.txt
Skipping down to chapter 9 for some immediate relevance.
If you honestly think this is the type of thing you wont find on the internet, then you are an internet newbie. Give me a challenge.
I didn't ask for one book. I didn't ask you for a "source". I asked you to give an intelligent answer to the issue, informed by the extant sources and the current state of knowledge concerning that era of English history.
So, what is your take on the effect (if any) of the lingering Romano-British influence or people had on the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms?
EDIT: Just to humor myself, I'll read chapter nine of that "e book". How do I get to it?
EDIT #2: If you are claiming that reading anythig on the internet is going to equip you to intelligently discuss the issue above, go for it. Take as long as you want to prepare. I'm ready to get started right now. Just let me know if you are interested.
I skimmed through Chapter Nine. Not really the greatest work. It said nothing about the issue above, in any case.
Check out the first sentence to Chapter IX:
It was impossible that a country lying within sight of the orthodox Frankish kingdom, and enclosed between two Christian Churches on either side, should long remain in such a state of isolated heathendom.
You can't be serious. What is this crap?
I think a tip-off concerning the suitability of this "e Book" comes from who published it:
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE, NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, CHARING CROSS, S.W.; 43, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C.; 48, PICCADILLY, W.; AND 135, NORTH STREET, BRIGHTON.
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.
In response to your "challenge," I would first re-iterate my own statement, which was "the type of issue you can only find in the library is very much the type of issue over which people argue the most.
One such issue about which one is unlikely to find any really good information on the internets is "To what extent was the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England affected by remnants (if any) of the Romano-British peoples?"
This is a subject that prompts fierce debate, mostly because there is no good answer (as of yet), and the issue implicates race, class, and religion. To even begin to be able to address this issue, one must have a broad knowledge of the nature of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy, Kingship and nobility in the "Dark ages," the history of the Church, the history of the Irish Christian Church, and the current state of knowledge concerning the Anglo-Saxon conquests of Britain after the Roman pullout in 410. That is just scratching the surface. None of these things can be adequately studied via the googles or Wikipedia.
So difficult to find that it almost took me 4 seconds of googling to find a source.
https://archive.org/stream/earlybritain16790gut/16790-0.txt
Skipping down to chapter 9 for some immediate relevance.
If you honestly think this is the type of thing you wont find on the internet, then you are an internet newbie. Give me a challenge.
I didn't ask for one book. I didn't ask you for a "source". I asked you to give an intelligent answer to the issue, informed by the extant sources and the current state of knowledge concerning that era of English history.
So, what is your take on the effect (if any) of the lingering Romano-British influence or people had on the Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms?
EDIT: Just to humor myself, I'll read chapter nine of that "e book". How do I get to it?
And I pointed out the information is out there, just like it might be in a library. I didn't promise you I would suddenly become interested in the topic, but if i was interested, I can become informed on it with that and any of the other hundreds of links I found.
I already have plans tonight - to catch up on Game of Thrones. Season 4 has started ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZY43QSx3Fk ) and I am still in the beginning of season 3. Plus I have to go over last nights chess game. You will have to find another debating partner for the poor Saxons and their indoctrination into a cult.
You talk about cults yet this is who published the "book" you recommended:
SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE, NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, CHARING CROSS, S.W.; 43, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, E.C.; 48, PICCADILLY, W.; AND 135, NORTH STREET, BRIGHTON.
NicE!
Irontiger, do you want to add any useful input or just degrade others? Also, Im assuming you had no clue what he meant so you cant call someone stupid if youre too stupid to understand what they say.
I don't want to feed the troll, as explained per my previous posts.
I have yet to see forum trolls argue over, say, this (btw this wiki is not to be trusted on the subject, there are sloppy formulations). Please point out one subject that you can only find in a library over which people like to argue.
But keep assuming.