Foxy,

"I must have mixed the two up."

Well I don't think that helps your case. Since both books pre-date Pascoe, neither followed him.

Might I suggest a different explanation for the repeated 'typos'. You wanted to boost Pascoe's credentials and started claiming that rooly-trooly historians were 'following' Pascoe's lead. You'd previously got the order right but changed it as required. And having done it once without challenge, just couldn't help doing it again until called out.

Just a thought. Makes more sense than continued, convenient, typos.

"now you appear to have fallen for
another lot that's been given of all people by the
editor of a right-wing News Corp newspaper - "Cairns
News."

ahem, 'Cairns News' isn't a News Corp paper. uh-ho.

I think we're about to discover that, even though the 'exposed' data was rejected because it was perpetrated by a News Corp paper which wasn't a NC paper, it doesn't really matter that the reason was wrong because of other reasons. Of course, when your modus operandi is to reach a conclusion then look for the data to justify it, it probably pays to make such the excuse is at least true.

Its always fun to watch Foxy's 'when I said X was false because of Y, it doesn't matter that Y was wrong because of Q and, and how dare you suggest that when I said X I didn't really mean Z because reasons.

Oh, by the way, Dark Emu Exposed is worth the read.

I note quite a few demanding that others read this or that. I haven't noticed any of them, however, showing any inclination to read the actual accounts from the early explorers. I guess they'd prefer having their data filtered by partisans. Indoctrination is so much simpler than seeking the truth yourself.

Oh, I noticed Paul has rejoined the fray. For those not paying attention, when I said that slavery existed in aboriginal 'society' Paul indignantly demanded evidence. I provided it. He did a runner. I guess he figures its safe to return now that that issue has passed

mhaze,

1) The fact is Bruce Pascoe did acknowledge both authors
in his book. Point made. And Pascoe historians have
recognised his work, as have the NSW Premier's Awards
judges - all 30 of them.

2) The fact is - Cairns News did publish the information
about the "Quiet Australians" hiding behind that
label who've started a review website condemning
Pascoe's book. We need to
question their credentials and who they are.
It's a normal mistake to think that Cairns News
and Cairns Post are one and the same newspaper.

Is Mise,

See, you really are a fan. Keeping count no less.
Now I'm impressed that you care. And ALTRAV thought
the 380+ (now over 400) responses were not because
people cared or were interested in the topic. Yet
the conversation is still going on this topic.
I'm impressed. Keep up the counting.

The link that Joe gave is very interesting and is either right or wrong.

Now I haven't read Pascoe's book yet, I'm on the library waiting list; I could buy it but it might be junk and a waste of money.

If Joe's link is wrong then somebody who has the book could put things right by pointing out their mistakes.

As for calling on the fact that 30 judges were of a particular opinion, well, numbers don't prove anything; the whole World got the date for the start of the current millennium wrong, except for The Royal Observatory at Greenwich and a few enlightened people who could count.

Is Mise,

Numbers don't prove anything?

Actually they do - otherwise why use them to make
a point? And 30 professional expert opinions count as
do "enlightened"historians who know their subject
matter.

Foxy,
Still you deflect away from and distort, the truth.
I told you, if you bothered to take it in, that nearly all of the, now 400 apparently, were all about arguing with you about how you distort and manipulate information to suite your agenda.
The topic is such a non-event that any discussions about it were over after the first few entries.
From then on it's all about you.
In fact one could say, had you left when you first said you would, you would have saved us all a lot of wasted time, having to answer you.
So it can be shown that you are the main protagonist in perpetrating this fraud you have manipulated yourself.
The fraud that the topic is so interesting it has gone on for more than 4oo submissions.
In going back to the start, you appear nearly on every page, sometimes more than once.
In fact the questions and attacks begin on the very first page.
Out of the six entries, two were your running mates, sucking up, so they don't count, the only other three were clearly not accepting your post, and that became the theme from there on.
So again, FAIL!
This topic is as interesting as,...................................no I won't say it.
I'll let others fill in the rest for me.

ISSY,
It's not that numbers do or don't count, it's about the terms of reference or the general consensus of those empowered with a certain responsibility such as judging something, even a book.
The flaw in these systems is that no judge wants to be seen as 'out of step' with the others, so it is much more comfortable and appealing to such people to come to a general agreement, thereby making any interactions pleasant ones instead of the opposite if they decided to vote against the pack.
None of us were there, so no one knows, but I have witnessed that which I have described.
It is more prevalent than many want to believe.