The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Thork on July 30, 2014, 03:19:34 PM
-
Making personal attacks (whether directed at people who have registered here or not) doesn't lend your stance any credibility, nor does it do our public image any favours, either as an independent society or with a view to reunion.
I don't think you are in tune with history of the flat earth society.
Mrs. Wallace,
Madam — If your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.
You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.
John Hampden
-
Hampden got sued multiple times for his libel. Generally not the best way to go about things.
http://wiki.tfes.org/John_Hampden
EDIT: And, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment), he also got jailed for it. Yeah, definitely not the best way to go about things.
-
Wikipedia has been vandalised by some angry globularist. Hampden was never imprisoned. They link the reference to a book as citation. Its a great book, has lots of interesting info, but it says nothing about Hampden going to prison. He never did and was never found guilty of libel.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bi1bAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Bedford+Canal+swindle+detected+%26+exposed.+A.+Bull,+London.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9lDZU6D1DdSY1AXo2IBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
^Read for yourself.
If anyone knows how to challenge this erroneous black mark on our flawless flat earth record with Wikipedia, please can you do so?
-
Wikipedia has been vandalised by some angry globularist. Hampden was never imprisoned. They link the reference to a book as citation. Its a great book, has lots of interesting info, but it says nothing about Hampden going to prison. He never did and was never found guilty of libel.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bi1bAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Bedford+Canal+swindle+detected+%26+exposed.+A.+Bull,+London.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9lDZU6D1DdSY1AXo2IBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
^Read for yourself.
If anyone knows how to challenge this erroneous black mark on our flawless flat earth record with Wikipedia, please can you do so?
They also link to a newspaper article in the same sentence of the BLE article when referring to Hambden's libel. Have you read the news paper article?
-
Wikipedia has been vandalised by some angry globularist. Hampden was never imprisoned. They link the reference to a book as citation. Its a great book, has lots of interesting info, but it says nothing about Hampden going to prison. He never did and was never found guilty of libel.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bi1bAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Bedford+Canal+swindle+detected+%26+exposed.+A.+Bull,+London.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9lDZU6D1DdSY1AXo2IBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
^Read for yourself.
If anyone knows how to challenge this erroneous black mark on our flawless flat earth record with Wikipedia, please can you do so?
So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?
-
So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?
Well, if the reference used to substantiate a claim doesn't have any references to the claim, it's a poor reference and shouldn't be considered valid. If no valid references exist, then the claim should be marked as unreferenced or removed. I think that's common sense.
-
So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?
Well, if the reference used to substantiate a claim doesn't have any references to the claim, it's a poor reference and shouldn't be considered valid. If no valid references exist, then the claim should be marked as unreferenced or removed. I think that's common sense.
Agreed. Can one of the British folks find a copy of the article referenced at a library perhaps? It would be a good addition to the wiki and/or FE library.
-
Hampden got sued multiple times for his libel. Generally not the best way to go about things.
Incorrect. Getting sued is the cheapest form of publicity. All you have to do is challenge the plaintiff to prove the earth is round otherwise they are infernal liars!
The public gallery will love it.
-
Hmm, it looks like The Times have an extensive archive for subscribers, and a 30-day trial is just £1. I'll sign up and see if I can find it.
-
Okay, yeah, the article's legit, he did go to jail. I'll post it momentarily.
-
Okay, here we go. Apologies for the poor quality, that's what I got from The Times' archive:
(http://i.omgomg.eu/times_hampden2)
You can read the whole page here (http://i.omgomg.eu/times_hampden). I'll update our Wiki and the library at some point soon.
-
Thanks PP.
-
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
Wrong. Thanks PP. I have to wonder how a Thork can so sure of something and be absolutely wrong. Oh, never mind.
-
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
Wrong. Thanks PP. I have to wonder how a Thork can so sure of something and be absolutely wrong. Oh, never mind.
Because unlike the round earthers here, I know that there was an appeal and that Hampden won it. He was in prison for just one week whilst he waited for the libel verdict to be over turned and given a 3 month restraining order. He did not serve 2 years and a subsequent 12 months.
Naturally, Wallace went to the police and laid charges against Hampden. Despite being sent to prison for a week and ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long. As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again. Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country. By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel. Although Wallace won the libel suit, Hampden simply turned over all his assets to his son-in-law and declared bankruptcy. Not only did this free him from any requirement to pay Wallace any money in damages but it also forced Wallace to bear all court costs.
Hampden still continued with his increasingly more bizarre attacks. While Wallace recognized that his adversary was mentally ill, that didn't provide much comfort considering the harm Hampden's accusations were doing to his public image. Although Wallace was able to win an additional libel suit against Hampden (including forcing him to make a public apology), nothing really changed. With the help of his flat-earth friends, Hampden brought a countersuit against Wallace demanding the return of his 500 pounds. Through a obscure legal technicality, Hampden actually won this case and Wallace was ordered to repay the money. After a lengthy legal battle, Wallace was left even more in debt than ever. By the time the whole sorry matter had ended in 1876, Wallace was left with a permanent stain on his professional reputation. He would say afterward that the entire wager had been one of the biggest mistakes of his life.
All this thread proves is that round earthers usually don't contribute anything and just like to sling mud based on whatever happens to back their stance in any thread.
He also was not found mentally ill, so this source has round earth bias slapped all over it too.
-
First:
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
Now:
He was in prison for just one week whilst he waited for the libel verdict to be over turned and given a 3 month restraining order.
I thank you for admitting that you were wrong, and in just over 24 hours, and in the same thread. I appreciate your humility.
Finally, would you please consider that it's rather hypocritical of you to title this thread with praise for the effectiveness of rudeness and then lament within the thread how REers "sling mud"?
All this thread proves is that round earthers usually don't contribute anything and just like to sling mud based on whatever happens to back their stance in any thread.
(http://i.imgur.com/RrZgepm.png)
-
All this thread proves is that round earthers usually don't contribute anything and just like to sling mud based on whatever happens to back their stance in any thread.
Agreed. Giving all of your assets to your son-in-law so that you can declare bankruptcy and screw your opponent out of rightful damages and court costs from a libel case that you lost is a valuable contribution and a class act. ::)
No Thork, this thread just goes to show what slimy assholes FE'ers can be when they're proven wrong.
-
::)
He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.
-
No, the court found that the bet was illegal and therefore null and void. I don't recall the court ever saying that the earth is flat.
-
I don't recall the court ever saying that the earth is flat.
I knew you were old, but I didn't imagine for a second that you were there. What was Hampden like in person?
-
He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.
I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.
Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?
-
He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.
I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.
Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?
Lurk moar. I've published the transcript of that court case more than 20 times for people too lazy to use Google.
-
He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.
I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.
Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?
Lurk moar. I've published the transcript of that court case more than 20 times for people too lazy to use Google.
I have read that transcript every time and it never says that Hampden was right, only that the bet was not legal, like Markjo said. You cling to that transcript much too tightly considering it does not say what you claim.
-
According to that article it looks like Hampden was twice sentenced to prison as well. So perhaps the first sentence was appealed but not the second?
-
I'm pretty sure he never got sent down properly. I'd have read it somewhere by now. I haven't time to dig about now, but if one of the RErs would look to see if there is a record of his time in prison (official, not the here say assumptions all over the internet) it would be very useful. I'm at work right now.
-
He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.
I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.
Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?
Lurk moar. I've published the transcript of that court case more than 20 times for people too lazy to use Google.
So how is it that you posted that he was never convicted of libel and was never imprisoned in this very thread. Do you need to "lurk moar"?
So an advanced search on "Hampden" posted by "Thork" yields only one possibility, not 20, and the link to the "published" transcript is broken.
I suggest that Christine Garwood's careful analysis in Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea Chapter 1 demonstrates that you're quite wrong again.
-
I'm pretty sure he never got sent down properly. I'd have read it somewhere by now. I haven't time to dig about now, but if one of the RErs would look to see if there is a record of his time in prison (official, not the here say assumptions all over the internet) it would be very useful. I'm at work right now.
I dont have the slightest idea of how to track down 19th century prison records from England. I am just a colonist after all.
-
Thork, the "released after one week" quote seems to talk about something that happened before 1875. Your source suggests that says that Wallace sued for libel after that imprisonment. We're talking about different incidents.
Despite being sent to prison for a week and ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long. As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again. Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country. By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.
-
Thork, the "released after one week" quote seems to talk about something that happened before 1875. Your source suggests that says that Wallace sued for libel after that imprisonment. We're talking about different incidents.
Despite being sent to prison for a week and ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long. As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again. Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country. By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.
Yes, but no mention of any further imprisonment after that. I've never seen anything about him being imprisoned before. I think that source is erroneous.
-
Thork, the "released after one week" quote seems to talk about something that happened before 1875. Your source suggests that says that Wallace sued for libel after that imprisonment. We're talking about different incidents.
Despite being sent to prison for a week and ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long. As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again. Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country. By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.
Yes, but no mention of any further imprisonment after that. I've never seen anything about him being imprisoned before. I think that source is erroneous.
Nope. Garwood confirms the second imprisonment, with a citation.
-
Okay, well, I went and grabbed the prison records.
2nd March 1875, Essex. John Hampden, imprisoned for libel. He's #8 on the list.
(http://i.omgomg.eu/hampden_prison)
-
Why is there a piece of paper covering the acquitted and discharged column by Hampden's name? Good research by the way. :)
Putting the likes of Gulliver to shame.
-
Why is there a piece of paper covering the acquitted and discharged column by Hampden's name?
Probably the Conspiracy trying to cover up some important details. On a more serious note, the first word looks a bit like "recogniz[ance?]", and then there's something about "2 ye[ars?]". Perhaps it's a note of the recognizance as mentioned in the last sentence of the Times article?
-
Its just I'm sure he was acquitted. I don't think he ever served a sentence for it.
-
What makes you think so?
-
I'd have seen it come up before. It would have had other repercussions at the time. Like on Rowbotham's cola business. Hampden shifted a lot of cola. No one stepped in to replace him at that time in the society. Those kinds of things. His life story doesn't tell of a 2 year spell in prison.
-
I am not sure what you think the difference is, but I cannot see a relevant difference. Is there some common usage in the 19th century you are thinking of?
EDIT: I was replying to Tom's now deleted post.
-
I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?
-
I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?
You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.
Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.
-
I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?
You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.
Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.
And there is the problem. One year? PPs book shows 2. Garwood has a track record of being economical with the truth as well.
-
I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?
You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.
Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.
And there is the problem. One year? PPs book shows 2. Garwood has a track record of being economical with the truth as well.
So you're now admitting to another error. You are wrong. Hampden was in prision twice.
-
Rather than playing a game of "aha!" can't we all just try and get the history correct?
-
Rather than playing a game of "aha!" can't we all just try and get the history correct?
I think Garwood's book does get the history correct, replete with citations. It's less than 10 bucks now.
-
I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?
You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.
Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.
And there is the problem. One year? PPs book shows 2. Garwood has a track record of being economical with the truth as well.
So you're now admitting to another error. You are wrong. Hampden was in prision twice.
Instead of working out what you think I know, why don't you just go hunt down the truth. I don't think he ever served a long term. I didn't think he'd even been in for one week, but I guess that usually happens when you have your conviction over turned whilst you wait.
Rather than playing a game of "aha!" can't we all just try and get the history correct?
I think Garwood's book does get the history correct, replete with citations. It's less than 10 bucks now.
Its practically toilet paper. Its a pretty awful book and is strewn with errors.
-
I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?
You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.
Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.
And there is the problem. One year? PPs book shows 2. Garwood has a track record of being economical with the truth as well.
So you're now admitting to another error. You are wrong. Hampden was in prision twice.
Instead of working out what you think I know, why don't you just go hunt down the truth. I don't think he ever served a long term. I didn't think he'd even been in for one week, but I guess that usually happens when you have your conviction over turned whilst you wait.
Rather than playing a game of "aha!" can't we all just try and get the history correct?
I think Garwood's book does get the history correct, replete with citations. It's less than 10 bucks now.
Its practically toilet paper. Its a pretty awful book and is strewn with errors.
I will continue point out your errors, especially with PP's help. I have the Truth, but when I present it FEers ust whine.
No one here is going to buy your outlandish claim that Garwood wrote an awful book strewn with errors without unbiased, accurate logic. You should in particular learn to stop using ad hominem fallacies.
-
Rather than playing a game of "aha!" can't we all just try and get the history correct?
I think Garwood's book does get the history correct, replete with citations. It's less than 10 bucks now.
Its practically toilet paper. Its a pretty awful book and is strewn with errors.
I'm sure that Ms. Garwood would be eternally grateful if you would provide her with the appropriate, credible documentation so that she can properly correct any errors that she made.
-
So I have had time to do some research of my own. Garwood is wrong as usual. He did not do 9 months. He only did 6. I'm surprised at this because I'd imagine it would dent his momentum, and I knew he never let up until the day he died. God loves a trier, and so does Thork. :D
John Hampden
Needless to say, Hampden soon had an opportunity to explain this letter to a judge. He explained that some young friends of his were very much disturbed about the way Wallace had treated him, and that, fearing violence, he had tried to warn Wallace. The judge was sceptical and ordered John to put up £100 as surety that he would keep the peace for three months, and also to find two other sureties at £50 apiece. Hampden spent a week in jail before he was able to find the two additional sureties.
Criminal libel became a habit with Hampden, and in the next four years he was convicted three times. The first time he got oS by apologizing to Wallace in several newspapers. The second time he was ordered to print another apology and to keep the peace, but the judge neglected to confiscate his ink bottle, and the never peaceful John was soon sentenced to two months in Newgate prison. On the third occasion the disgusted judge sent him up for a year. He was released in six months.
My next research will be on this
To believers in England Hampden became a hero, a David who had wildly attacked Goliath and been diddled out of his victory. Besides his other activities, he founded and edited three short-lived flat-Earth magazines and wrote many articles and pamphlets. In these, he vilified youknow-who, exposed the "OTors" of Newton, unveiled his interpretation of the laws of nature, defended his military genius, denounced atmospheric pressure as an “absurdity" and announced the impending
end of the world. It came for him on January 22, 1891.
I have no idea how he was connected to the military or what he did.
-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VrO8ho8E68YC&pg=PA371&lpg=PA371&dq=john+hampden+imprisonment+flat+earth&source=bl&ots=pXM3i7OZfR&sig=0kynTkjx8TOeVRFuaHUKlaLgI3g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4ajaU8qJCeuw7Aa4yoCADA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john%20hampden%20imprisonment%20flat%20earth&f=false
A blow by blow description by Wallace himself from his autobiography. It is from this that everyone else is getting their info, albeit Garwood is exaggerating as usual.
-
So I have had time to do some research of my own. Garwood is wrong as usual. He did not do 9 months. He only did 6. I'm surprised at this because I'd imagine it would dent his momentum, and I knew he never let up until the day he died. God loves a trier, and so does Thork. :D
John Hampden
Needless to say, Hampden soon had an opportunity to explain this letter to a judge. He explained that some young friends of his were very much disturbed about the way Wallace had treated him, and that, fearing violence, he had tried to warn Wallace. The judge was sceptical and ordered John to put up £100 as surety that he would keep the peace for three months, and also to find two other sureties at £50 apiece. Hampden spent a week in jail before he was able to find the two additional sureties.
Criminal libel became a habit with Hampden, and in the next four years he was convicted three times. The first time he got oS by apologizing to Wallace in several newspapers. The second time he was ordered to print another apology and to keep the peace, but the judge neglected to confiscate his ink bottle, and the never peaceful John was soon sentenced to two months in Newgate prison. On the third occasion the disgusted judge sent him up for a year. He was released in six months.
My next research will be on this
To believers in England Hampden became a hero, a David who had wildly attacked Goliath and been diddled out of his victory. Besides his other activities, he founded and edited three short-lived flat-Earth magazines and wrote many articles and pamphlets. In these, he vilified youknow-who, exposed the "OTors" of Newton, unveiled his interpretation of the laws of nature, defended his military genius, denounced atmospheric pressure as an “absurdity" and announced the impending
end of the world. It came for him on January 22, 1891.
I have no idea how he was connected to the military or what he did.
So you started out at no prison time, then a week, then six months. Now you fail to add up the three prison terms in the very evidence you present. Would you please take the time to complete your research, add up all terms, and then make declarations. Thanks.
Oh, and according to Garwood, Hampden designed military machines.
-
I'm not interested in your bickering.
Oh, and according to Garwood, Hampden designed military machines.
This I am interested in. Garwood ... now I have my doubts. So many people quote her and she makes so much of it up.
And extended quote because the first paragraph is on topic and fun
Mr. Proctor is the only man in England who has degraded himself by defending the swindler Wallace." Mr. Proctor had written something about the origin of whales; whereupon Mr. Hampden wrote to him direct:—"If you would endeavour to describe the origin of liars and impostors, you would find they came into the world when the Pagan lunatics devised the shape of the world. If whales are derived from pigs, according to your theory, you must have been foaled by an ass!"
Mr. Empson E. Middleton, a disciple of the same school as Mr. Hampden, was also a frequent correspondent of the Weekly Chronicle. Who and what else he was Mr. Middleton explained in a pamphlet which he printed in 1876. There he described himself as "the Poet, Geometrician, Metaphysician, Lecturer, and Patentee in Yacht and Ship Building, E. E. Middleton, Esq., member of the Royal Canoe Club, London; the Royal Albert Yacht Club, Southsea; and the Naval and Military Club, London."
Its things like this that Garwood often just misreads. Is it Hampden who is the military genius or his friend?
Love to find some of his machines. A picture or description.
-
I'm not interested in your bickering.
Oh, and according to Garwood, Hampden designed military machines.
This I am interested in. Garwood ... now I have my doubts. So many people quote her and she makes so much of it up.
And extended quote because the first paragraph is on topic and fun
Mr. Proctor is the only man in England who has degraded himself by defending the swindler Wallace." Mr. Proctor had written something about the origin of whales; whereupon Mr. Hampden wrote to him direct:—"If you would endeavour to describe the origin of liars and impostors, you would find they came into the world when the Pagan lunatics devised the shape of the world. If whales are derived from pigs, according to your theory, you must have been foaled by an ass!"
Mr. Empson E. Middleton, a disciple of the same school as Mr. Hampden, was also a frequent correspondent of the Weekly Chronicle. Who and what else he was Mr. Middleton explained in a pamphlet which he printed in 1876. There he described himself as "the Poet, Geometrician, Metaphysician, Lecturer, and Patentee in Yacht and Ship Building, E. E. Middleton, Esq., member of the Royal Canoe Club, London; the Royal Albert Yacht Club, Southsea; and the Naval and Military Club, London."
Its things like this that Garwood often just misreads. Is it Hampden who is the military genius or his friend?
Love to find some of his machines. A picture or description.
Surely a laid-off commercial jet pilot could afford his own copy of Garwood's work. See: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0330432893/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used
-
Well, I just ordered one for myself. £2.80 with free one-day delivery (thanks, free Amazon Prime trial!)
I'm going to forget to cancel all those free trials, aren't I?
-
Well, I just ordered one for myself. £2.80 with free one-day delivery (thanks, free Amazon Prime trial!)
I'm going to forget to cancel all those free trials, aren't I?
Great. Now once you have one I'll respect your opinion of it.
Also, I recall on the old site that a benevolent REer sent out copies when the book (hardbound) first came out to FEers.
-
Due to some shenanigans with Amazon (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1776.0) I will now be getting 2 copies of the book, so I could also potentially donate one to a member here, or a local library. I haven't decided quite yet, but if someone feels like they'd make particularly good use of the book, feel free to get in touch.