Dear Is Mise,

For crying out loud you asked my to comment on something you raised purporting to show that Pascoe was fabricating and misquoting the early invader's diaries.

As well have discussed he did no such thing on this occasion. Do you have a second example to try and prove your point?

Steele,

For crying out loud you asked my[sic] to comment on something you raised purporting to show that Pascoe was fabricating and misquoting the early invader's diaries."

Well he wasn't, because as far as we know the early invaders left no diaries, the post 1788 settlers and explorers left diaries and it is those diaries that he misquotes; so now what about his claims to be Aboriginal?

Twist as much as you like, Pascoe is still considered by many to be a liar and a charlatan.

"I (Is Mise) haven't really read 'Dark Emu' either, scanning it was enough to convince me that to really read it would have been wasted effort."

"As I (Is Mise) siad(sic) his book 'Dark Emu' is badly written, badly edited and , to be charitable, somewhat mishandles the truth.”

Issy, how did you come to the second conclusion, without having read the book? You didn't like the cover, or did 'beat Up'Bolt tell you so?

I read the book, it was an easy read, no words like siad (you certainly must get that 'Grammearly' thing you recommend for others when they do a typo, pot calling the kettle black, ha).

p/s What did you scan the book with to come to your conclusions? Your electric toothbrush!

Paul,

Scanning was easy, I used my eyes.

Any comments on Pascoe's alleged ancestry?

I'm not using my own computer at the moment but an Apple one with small print and with my eyes you can expect some typos, what's your excuse for your's?

Like most discussions, this one has turned into pissing contest: nothing to do with the subject, and an insult to Is Mise who introduced it in good faith. When the very people who Pascoe claims kinship with him reject his claims, there can be no argument. Pascoe is a fraud. End of story.

No wonder there have been few new topics put up lately. No matter what the subject is, one or two idiots use the opportunity to get dirty water off their chests and post irrelevant bulldust.

SR,

So what it all comes down to is:

- what unambiguous evidence is there that:

* . Pascoe is in any way Indigenous ?

* . much more importantly, that farming in anything like the conventional sense for early societies, was carried out anywhere in Australia apart from the areas on Cape York and the TS islands influenced by farmers from PNG ? And by the way, according to the Pascoe Version, why were people up on the Cape and in the Islands allowed to continue unhindered in their farming activities ? In fact, on early Missions, weren't there major efforts everywhere to try to persuade people to grow food ?

Farming, not stooking grain which was and is available all over Australia (so why grow it ?). Systematically, annually, clearing and cultivating the soil in order to plant seed or tubers. Where are there any cultivating implements (as one could easily find in NZ, for example) ? Evidence of storage systems ?

The lack of evidence may well indicate the lack of such activity. The pathetic defence that it was all destroyed by evil whitefellas is not exactly proof of the existence of farming, but for any sane person, simply a lack of evidence.

And even if the quotes from Sturt and Mitchell were accurate, why did they break ranks and write as they did ? Didn't they get the Secret Message that they had to deny any evidence of farming ? They were both military officers, and so according to the Pascoe Fantasy, hardly likely to tell the Pascoe Truth.

So what's the agenda ? Why push this rubbish ? Why deny the truths that thousands of writers have described, chapter and verse ?

Joe