Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.nlang.celts
Subject: Re: Irish Genocide: A Reply to Kenneth Almquist
Message-ID: <162@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Dec-83 15:10:34 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.162
Posted: Thu Dec 29 15:10:34 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Dec-83 00:44:24 EST
References: <185@houxk.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 26

[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.