jmg@houxk.UUCP (J.MCGHEE) (12/29/83)
To: Kenneth Almquist From: J. McGhee Before we can begin to discuss the subjective issues of history we have to have at least a basic understanding of the historical facts. Kenneth Almquist's reply to my article shows that he does not understand the basic facts because he has confused Charles I with his son Charles II. He states that Parliament passed a law preventing Charles I from becoming king when in fact Charles I *RULED* from 1625 to 1640 and suspended Parliament from 1629 to 1640. I can't see how a serious discussion of history can be carried on when people make such gross errors. This kind of error invalidates any conclusions they may come to with their corrupted data. Furthermore, the chair that a king sits on is called a "throne" - not a "thrown" as Kenneth Almquist spelled it a number of times. Please correct this article and re-submit it after you have analysed the TRUE facts again.
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (12/29/83)
[Sorry to post this twice, but McGhee posted two copies of his article, and since his article accuses me of making "gross errors" I want to have a chance to defend myself in all the newsgroups that his article appears.] Before we can have a substantive discussion J. McGhee has to read my article. I wrote: Before executing Charles's father, Charles I, parliament abolished the monarchy, so that nobody would become king after Charles I. If it isn't obvious from this sentence that it was not Charles I who was prevented from becoming king, then I apologize for the lack of clarity. My apologies also for the spelling errors in my article. I'm not going to follow McGhee's suggestion that I submit a corrected version of my article because anybody who didn't take the time to figure out the first version probably doesn't want to see a second. Kenneth Almquist P.S. If this is to turn into a mudslinging contest, I might as well point out that McGhee's claim that, "He states that Parliament passed a law preventing Charles I from becoming king when in fact Charles I *RULED* from 1625 to 1640 and suspended Parliament from 1629 to 1640," does not suggest a great deal of understanding of historical facts. Charles I ruled until 1649, not 1640, and the whole statement is silly because Charles II also *RULED*; otherwise he wouldn't be called Charles II.