WittyProfileName2

I did a bit of testing myself and I can't find any pattern for which mythological characters are fictional vs which are ambiguous.

Ceridwen (a character from Welsh folklore) is ambiguous but her daughter Creirwy is not a recognised public figure. Lilith is fictional. Shamhat (from the epic of Gilgamesh) is fictional.

Edit: to muck around a bit further I tried some saints. Dwynwen is is a historical figure, Gwen the triple breasted is not. Agatha of Sicilly ~~is corrected into Agatha Christie for some reason~~ That was 'cos of a typo, it does recognise her as a historical figure.

18/21

Idk if this is just luck, or if I'm surprisingly good at this.

Major "that Red Dwarf episode where they have to save Kryten from a computer virus by hooking themselves up to a VR game" vibes.

I think it's one of those weird quirks with how federation works. I can view it via hexbear but not lemm.ee.

If this is the calibre of historian you like to cite, no wonder you take so much stock in Robert Conquest and Anne Applebaum.

So you're conceding my point that he walked back the genocide accusations?

Wait, they did what?

Checks moderation history

This is all total nonsense. The Rhodesian cause was perhaps the most justified cause that has ever been fought for. History has proven this to be completely and utterly the case.

Why haven't the mods banned this dickhead already?

I don't think the word genocide as such is a very useful one. When I say if you want to use it you can, but it was invented for rather different purposes. I can see that the trouble is it implies that somebody, some other nation, or a large part of it were doing it, that the Nazis are more or less implicated, they are Germans. But I don't think this is true -- it wasn't a Russian exercise, the attack on the Ukrainian people. But it was a definite attack on them as they were discriminated against as far as death went. But it didn't mean if you were a Russian you were doing very well in Stalin's time either.

So you've got:

• Something he said literal seconds after he didn't classify it as a genocide.

• not Robert Conquest

• not Robert Conquest

• not Robert Conquest

Stunning proof that Robert Conquest referred to the Holodomor as a genocide.

No citation from these later works where you say "he continued to use and discuss the term "genocide" when talking about the famine." Or anything of the sort.

I feel you've got yourself tangled into the weeds of whether or not Robert Conquest viewed the Holodomor as a genocide, when my original point was that "The Harvest of Sorrow" is a shitty source on the Holodomor. But anyway.

When I say if you want to use it you can, but it was invented for rather different purposes.

He's saying that he doesn't call it a genocide himself but doesn't oppose other people calling it that. If he refuses to call it a genocide then clearly he doesn't view it as a genocide.

Even in his later work, he continued to use and discuss the term "genocide" when talking about the famine.

Then cite him, give me a quote. Because it's looking like all you've got here is shaking your head and saying no.

He wrote prefaces to later editions of "The Harvest of Sorrow" (e.g., the 2004 edition) explicitly stating that the newly available archival data overwhelmingly confirmed his initial conclusions about the famine's artificial nature and its genocidal character.

Then why cite the 1986 version that used inaccurate secondary accounts and hearsay if the newer edition is even more conclusive?

Robert Conquest never walked back his accusation of genocide.

Here he is in 2006, being interviewed by CIA mouth piece Radio Free Europe, and refusing to call it a genocide. (Source)

I don't know much about the internal politics and what caused people to vote one way or the other and things like that. But in my book on the famine, "The Harvest of Sorrow," I go into the question of genocide and note that by the definition of genocide at the time it was put to the United Nations, it covered a much broader field than the Jewish one.

It included partial attempts on nationality. I don't think the word genocide as such is a very useful one. When I say if you want to use it you can, but it was invented for rather different purposes. I can see that the trouble is it implies that somebody, some other nation, or a large part of it were doing it, that the Nazis are more or less implicated, they are Germans. But I don't think this is true -- it wasn't a Russian exercise, the attack on the Ukrainian people. But it was a definite attack on them as they were discriminated against as far as death went. But it didn't mean if you were a Russian you were doing very well in Stalin's time either.

but what about Robert Conquest's "The Harvest of Sorrow" (1986)?

This is kinda a shitty source on the Holodomor as:

• Robert Conquest was a self described "cold warrior" who had an ideological bias against the Soviet Union and that filtered into his work.

• other scholars question his sources.

• when Soviet archives were unsealed during Gorbachev's Glasnost campaign a lot of new information contradicted his findings and which caused him to walk back genocide accusations in later works.

There's a lot of horror franchises that shouldn't've been more than a single film. Off the top of my head: Hellraiser, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Blair Witch, and Black Christmas.

Only Fools and Horses shoulda ended on the episode where they finally strike it rich. None of the episodes after that justify bringing it back.