20090816

Some Excerpts From the Your Favorite Ghostwriter & Jaylemurph Debates - Are they Part of the Chris Marlowe II Whodunnit? (Click here & find out!)


Click here to view this topic in its original format


Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums _ Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History _ Holy Blood aka Holy Grail... lost in Bruges?

Posted by: Your Favorite Ghostwriter Feb 21 2009, 02:23 PM

King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table searched for it... The cup from which Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper and that was later filled with his blood, at Golgotha. Legend says this "Holy Blood", also known as "the Holy Grail" (Sang Real = San Greal = Saint Grail) was brought to Britain, but it has never been found there. Treasure hunters are searching the Holy Grail in places like Glastonbury and that is very strange, because the one and only Holy Blood was found by the Knights Templar and the Count of Flanders on Christmas Day 1148, in the Holy Grave in Jerusalem! They brought it to Bruges, the Venice of the Nord, where you still can see it in the Chapel of the Holy Blood. But some say that it is a false relic, and that the one and only real Holy Grail was hidden somewhere in a house in Bruges. Eat your heart out, Dan Brown!...


I say, do you give Lincoln, Baigent and co. payment (or even credit) for using their ideas, or are you so ignorant of what they actually wrote (from completely disproven sources) that you don't know you're a happy little plagiarist?

--Jaylemurph


No, but the first two thirds of your spiel is word for word out of their books. Granted, those words came straight out of the mouth of a convicted con-man, but still, having taken the time to write a book and get it published, they deserve the credit. I mean, at least with them it was an honest con. What's your excuse?

--Jaylemurph




I still say -- show me somebody parading these facts before Lincoln et al. The facts -- which are still debatable -- may not need attribution, but the arrangement of these facts into an interpretation (which is what those authors did) certainly was not common knowledge to anyone, in Belgium or out of it. They did it first, and to use it you need to acknowledge this whole routine was not your own concept, however much you seem to feel free to use it.

Well, not ignorant, but the others seem on the money -- you may not have quite the notoriety of a Sitchin or van Daniken, but you're sure playing the same game. You're even worse than they are, since you're clearly in their debt and refuse to admit it. You appear to think your dreck -- which is easily attributable to other authors -- is somehow original.



Don't show this man a Babel fish! I love how he keeps shouting his basic premise -- that the Templars found something of Jesus and brought it back to Europe -- is totally his own unique idea, and a picture of a lamb and a chalice prove it beyond doubt. /And/ the Nazis stole it. That makes it extra super-duper true.

...I just want to know how much longer it is till we find out that it's /he/ who is, in fact, the descendant of Jesus Holy Priest-King of all Europe. And not Pierre "Le Garcon" Plantard. And he saves all Holland by sticking his finger in a hole in a dyke.

--Jaylemurph




Sigh. Just because you say things over and over again doesn't make them a good argument. Still though, I guess I oughtn't to expect a pseudo-history writer to grasp that, really: doing so would negate their work and leave them penniless.
You haven't proven me wrong. Your thesis is /still/ a picture of a lamb and a chalice are somehow more meaningful in Belgium than in the rest of Europe. Not only that, but you seem to refuse to accept the point this is a common christian motif. Fair enough: I assume that by your argument, you's also think that there's a Holy Grail hanging about at every Angus Dei in the world, and that wouldn't be good for sales, either.

But it is an argument, not a theory and certainly not proof of anything. As legion points out, you're still a bit murky on the difference between a fact and a belief. Occupational hazard, I suppose.

Yes, I certainly do call you a plagiarist. And will do so as long as you attempt to either a) pass of Lincoln, Baigent et al.'s work -- or that of their direct sources -- as your own work, or B) try pass off that this "common knowledge" -- which seems to exist only in other fringe literature -- is somehow yours to pass off as unique, needing no citation.



Yes, I know, dear thing, it is hard when people don't buy your work as divine truth. Caliban and the glass and all that.

I imagine it's even worse for you when they say so without /paying/ for the privilege. But frankly, with your weak arguments and poor command of facts, I think you've managed to settle out exactly where you belong: a sort of sub-Hancockian fringe author panhandling for facts on a internet forum, unable even to convince people /for free/.

Bruges seems oddly appropriate for you.


--Jaylemurph

No comments: