Charlie,
This was Ritchie's very first post addressing me, at least using "Richie" as and idintity:
[Joe wrote - "The rumors of Jesuit treasure and mines are over 242 years old. Not ONE mission possessed the treasures the soldiers were looking for. That means either the Jesuits had ample warning of what was coming, or there was no true treasure in the first place. Not ONE of the Jesuit mines was found. One wonders just how much time they had to hide all evidence of mining.
One of the Jesuit priests actually went mad when the order of expulsion was read. It seems unlikely that he knew in advance. No advance of soldiers on the missions would have gone unnoticed by the Indians. Assuming that is true, it seems natural that the Jesuits would have gone out to meet them. I would like to reread that particular event".
Joe,
You do not know any of this to be fact. You are forming conclusions based on assumptions that everything you have read is true. This is the type of attitude that turns this kind of discussion into an argument.
ie: Not ONE of the Jesuit mines was found. Where did you read that? From what source did you learn it if you did not read it somewhere? How can you conclude it to be true, when more likely than not, any mines that were found were kept secret by the finders? It is you my friend that that will destroy an effort to build a bridge across the Grey area, if you do not stop making these kind of posts.
If you do not wish to participate in the effort to build the bridge, please do not disrrupt the rest of us from trying.
Ritchie]
______________________________________________
Now you, my friend, may not find that highly insulting, but I do. Every statement I made was "historically" correct. This was my rather even handed and restrained reply:
[Ritchie,
Thank you for your reply and critique of my knowledge. I am sure, you believe, you are correct.
"You do not know any of this to be fact. You are forming conclusions based on assumptions that everything you have read is true. This is the type of attitude that turns this kind of discussion into an argument."
Your own attitude seems a bit aggressive and argumentative for someone who has been in this discussion for such a short time. Despite that, I am more than happy to address your points.
You are assuming that you know all of my sources. You are also assuming that I only get my information from books. While that is a major source for me, another that I rely on heavily is personal contact with a number of archaeologists and historians, who are kind enough to reply when I have a question.
Since none of us were there when these events took place, we are all assuming that our sources are as good as it gets. That would, of course, include Ritchie.
Since you have denigrated books as a viable source for historical facts, perhaps you can name something that you feel is a better source for the "best evidence". Please make sure that any source that you use did not use books, manuscripts or historical documents as a source.
Many of the books I have read were written by the people who lived the events we are debating. You can assume they are lying if you like, but without some kind of compelling proof, I will continue to accept them as the "best evidence" available.
On the other hand, I know that everything I have read is demonstrably not true. That is why I read and own so many books. I look for corroborating stories from the other writers from that era. That is how I form my opinions and in some cases my conclusions.
How do you arrive at such things?
[I.e.: Not ONE of the Jesuit mines was found. Where did you read that? From what source did you learn it if you did not read it somewhere? How can you conclude it to be true, when more likely than not, any mines that were found were kept secret by the finders? It is you my friend that that will destroy an effort to build a bridge across the Grey area, if you do not stop making these kind of posts.]
Reread what I have written above.
Let's get something else straight, while we're at it: This building of bridges across grey areas is your baby, not mine. It may be grey, and it may need a bridge, but I will continue to carry on the conversation as I see fit. If someone, like you, wants to build a bridge to an area that is not supported by the existing historical facts, count me out.
I don't believe in changing history one word at a time or entire bridges.........without facts. Now if you want to continue in this debate, get off your high horse and bring some facts, rather than conjecture, to the table.
"If you do not wish to participate in the effort to build the bridge, please do not disrrupt the rest of us from trying."
As soon as you are put in charge here, you can start dictating how the conversations will be shaped and who will be allowed to participate.
Your friend,
Joe Ribaudo]
______________________________________
Since you chose to sit on your hands while Ritchie was telling me how stupid I am, I will assume you agree with everything he wrote in the above post. Since that may very well be true, I have no problem with your voicing your opinion on what has taken place. I reserve my right to return insult for insult and respect for respect. If you have a serious problem with that, take it up with the moderators. I am more than willing to accept their, unbiased, opinion. In fact, I am inclined to ask them myself.
When an agenda raises its ugly head so early in someone's initial postings, it should raise a red flag for everyone.......excluding you, of course.
Take care,
Your friend, Joe