More from Mike Cassidy (yawn)

I have just received another message from Cassidy’s brother Mike. Against my better judgment, I have decided to reproduce and answer it here.

MC: As for ” I hope this isn’t a repeat”: I thought I had already posted.

Me: Fine. That clears that up.

MC: Ok, Cadet Bones Spurs Two: Like Cadet Bone Spurs One, you are coward, that is why you hide.
In case it is not clear I find people who hide silly twits ( to use your word). I defended Dan’s hiding behind sock puppets? Please show me where I said that?

Me: No, I am not a coward. I let the facts speak for themselves. I post anonymously but if people want to argue with the facts presented, I will give them that right. The problem is, most of them just rant and trot out the same old non-sequiturs they learned from your brother. What do I define as cowardice? Well, how about deciding that a cheap con-man is some kind of guru, finding out that he wasn’t, but being so afraid to appear stupid that you end up bending over backwards to pretend that you weren’t wrong in the first place, as so many of Cassidy’s cronies did?

And I never accused you of defending your brother’s hiding behind sock puppets. I said that I don’t see why I should avoid anonymity if your brother posted anonymously all the time. Unless you think there should be one rule for him and another for the rest of us, eh?

MC: Actually with a little research you can document my sister’s loss of the suit Claire brought.

Me: I didn’t say that I doubted that. I stated quite clearly that I doubted whether that was the only, or even the main reason she came to despise him so much. Try to keep up! Are you drinking?

MC: As for me researching whether Dan lied to New College, why would I? I was not interested. And yes I knew he never graduated; in fact my sister learned from me. As far as I know he wasn’t booted out of Cornell, he left to write. Do more research on New College and you’ll see is isn’t such a stretch to believe he would been awarded the title of Professor.

Me: You weren’t interested in the fact that your brother might have been a criminal? Nice to know. Your brother was removed from Cornell so I presume he didn’t ‘leave to write.’ Anyway, the fact that New College was a shambolic outfit where nothing was done properly doesn’t exonerate him.  Their accreditation came from WASC and I can’t see WASC agreeing to them employing a completely unqualified man as a senior lecturer. Also, some of the money for students came directly or indirectly from public funding. So the authorities would expect the staff to be properly qualified. In other words, I still think he lied, even if the authorities at NC looked the other way. This is not a trivial issue and it speaks volumes about the kind of man your brother was.

MC: “It’s very easy to harrumph and huff and bluster and hector and bully and fly into a rage and chew the carpet and complain about the unfairness of it all and accuse me of being anti-Irish and call me names like neo-con”: Gee, I read my post and I don’t believe I said any of that.

Me: No, I wasn’t specifically referring to you (except in the neo-con bit). I was referring to dozens of supporters of your brother’s trash who have come on here with all guns blazing but when challenged to present evidence, they suddenly disappear.

MC: I have actually read some of your posts, and find them interesting. I also find interesting your whining about few readers. You would do better to stop the name calling and just keep doing the examples of his mistakes. if you created a wiki page you would do your crusade wonders.

Me: Well, thank you for that. However, I’m not moaning about the lack of readers. I’ve said repeatedly, I would rather tell the truth to a handful of people than spread the kind of insane lies your brother made up to thousands. As for name-calling, if people deserve to be criticised, I’ll criticise them.  The fact is, there will always be nutters like your brother who make up lies. What makes this case different is that your brother managed to charm dozens of high-profile and not so high-profile people who should have known a lot better than to be taken in by a cheap con-man with no qualifications.

MC: Also if you actually read my post you will notice I never defended the book. However you are too busy ranting to actually read what I posted. As for deleting this post fine with me it is your little blog.

Me: Hold your horses, Mike. You came here and effectively accused me of being a liar (Cadet Bone Spurs). I’m not fucking psychic. You said absolutely nothing, negative or positive, about your brother’s bullshit ‘research’, which is the subject of this blog, so it’s quite reasonable to assume that you were criticising me because you thought I was lying about your brother’s work. Learn to express yourself properly in English (it’s probably way too late for you to learn any Irish), then I’ll know what you’re talking about.

However, by the sound of it, you are saying that you accept that your brother took a lecturer’s job without a degree and don’t care and that you think your brother’s book is indefensible. So, we both agree I’m telling the truth but you think I should be a bit nicer about your brother and the rest of the trash who have supported this rubbish. Well, while we’re giving each other advice, Mike, perhaps you should start a charity called “Be nice to con-men!” You could have a flag-day (without registering it as a charity), then just pocket the money and go on holiday!

 

Then, shortly after this message, I received another:

BTW if you wish to keep hidden you should delete all the different names Dan called; especially Neocon.

Me: I’m really not sure what this means, except perhaps that the reference to Neocons was included by me because of some comments added to a blog by you here: irishkc.com/american-slang-created-by-irish-and-jazz-too.html 

In those comments, you insult a man called Michael Scott (saying that he must be a neocon because of his disregard for the facts! Talk about pots and kettles) for finding fault with your brother’s book before he had read it. What you don’t say is that hundreds of your brother’s fake derivations had already been published on CounterPunch long before then, so it would have been easy for anyone to make a judgment on the imbecility and worthlessness of your brother’s work without buying the book. And while I find your comment unclear and badly-written, I suspect that you think the reference to “call me a Neo-Con” means that I am Michael Scott. Good luck with that! Let me assure everyone reading this blog – I am not called Michael Scott. However, if you wish to spread that name, Mike, please do so. It will help to maintain my anonymity!

And with that, this conversation ends. I really can’t be bothered talking to you anymore. I’m a busy man and I have already given you more of my valuable time than you deserve.

Advertisements

A Message From Mike Cassidy

A week ago, I received a message from Cassidy’s brother Mike. It contains nothing new and nothing of any interest but I have decided to reproduce it here along with my answers to his comments.

 

MC: I hope this is not a repeat.

Me: I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this, so I won’t bother answering it.

MC: I am amazed this controversy is still goin on after ten years; I stumbled on your the post about Peter Quinn.

Me: Yes, I am also quite flabbergasted that I still have to keep on telling people the truth over and over again – that your brother’s book was a hoax. You see, there never really was ‘a controversy’. On the one side, there was a bunch of ignorant people and batshit crazy people and very naïve people who defended this rubbish in spite of all the evidence that it was rubbish, and there were a lot of well-qualified, well educated people on the other side who have continued to point out what nonsense your brother’s book was. A controversy implies a meaningful debate between two sides who both have valid or possible arguments. This is like a debate between Steven Hawking and Charles Berlitz: our side is 100% right, your brother’s supporters are not even wrong.

For example, here are some comments posted on Twitter the other day:

Seán Óg Mac Cionnaith 5 July 2018

Some hack wrote a whole book full of this shite – How The Irish Invented Slang. Infuriating paddywhackery

On the same day, Mike Duffy in New York replied with this:

I was still ink-slinging for a living when that hack’s book came out and did a wee phone interview for a piece which I then dropped very, very quickly when it became clear he was full of shit.

That’s the way Irish speakers and intelligent people everywhere approach this. Your brother’s work was nonsense. I must say, I never quite got my head around what was wrong with your brother. There is certainly an element of craziness in confidently stating to the world that pizzazz comes from the ‘Irish’ píosa theas, when no such phrase exists and it would mean ‘a southern piece’ if it did. Almost all the phrases in this book are similarly deluded. At the same time, there is a certain method in his madness. The things that aren’t mentioned tend to be the things that would invalidate his arguments. In other words, there is also a large element of dishonesty in his ‘research’. However, the stupidity and ignorance in this book is the first thing that hits you. These elements combine to make your brother a total disaster in terms of producing anything worth reading.

MC: First, the title ‘professor’ is awarded by a college and has nothing to do with a degree. If I remember correctly Dan did not teach Irish, but taught about Irish genealogy and film writing.

Me: Good God, what a condescending arsehole you are! Amazing though it may seem to people like you, ignorant bog-Arabs like me in a shithole country like Ireland actually know that a professor is a rank, not an academic degree. However, to say there is no connection between having degrees and being a professor is a bit like saying that there is no connection between being able to drive and being a driving instructor. As for your brother not teaching Irish, he was apparently nominally a professor of Irish Studies, which doesn’t necessarily imply having a knowledge of the language. Which is a good thing, because he didn’t know any Irish.

MC: He also went to the School of General Studies of Columbia after Cornell. I do not know if Dan told New College he had a degree; I know he never told me he had a degree – I would needle him about it.

Me: For those reading this who know nothing about American education, the School of General Studies at Columbia is a college you would go to in order to get an undergraduate degree. I know that your brother mentioned doing ‘some classes’ in Columbia but he obviously never got a degree from there. How do I know? Well, your brother in interviews talks about attending Cornell and doing well there. He mentions taking some classes at Columbia. He is described elsewhere as a proud graduate of Cornell and Columbia, but that’s only in one article in a newspaper and it is belied by the rest of the evidence. And of course, the Irish Crossroads Festival said that he got a BA from Columbia and an MA in History from Cornell but that is probably a deliberate, dishonest attempt to throw people off the scent. (Again, it is contradicted by the evidence from Cassidy’s own mouth.) And various other places mention his degree from Cornell. It seems obvious that he pretended to be a graduate. But you know, and I know, that he was booted out of Cornell without a degree and he never got a degree from Columbia.

Here’s what I really don’t get about the lines above. You seem to be saying that you knew your brother didn’t have a degree. Then years later, your brother becomes a professor in a college. Are you trying to tell me it never even occurred to you that your brother Daniel might have lied and cheated his way into getting a professorship? I mean, what went through your head? ‘Wow, that’s Danny – such a smooth-talking bastard. No degree and he walks into a lecturer’s job in a university!’ Or was it more like: ‘Wow, they really do things differently in California! Everywhere else, you need a doctorate or at least a master’s degree, but in California you don’t need qualifications. I wonder if anyone on the faculty in New College has a degree? Still, I bet they can all surf!’  

In other words, I really don’t understand this lack of curiosity on your part. If your brother pretended to have a degree, or several degrees, to gain employment, he was committing a serious criminal offence. Not only that, he was behaving in a way that was a betrayal of all the radical and left-wing views he pretended to support. Because of a history of discrimination against Catholics here in the Six Counties, employers have to be very careful here about the protocols surrounding job applications. Your brother, who barely had the qualifications to be a janitor, was allowed to swan around the world pretending to be a professor and an expert on the Irish language. Which is, frankly, disgusting.

MC: Dan and his sister were not close the last years of his life. His sister has her nose out of ‘joint’ because Dan’s widow sued her for money left to him by our mother.

Me: Do I believe this? Not really. In the discussions I had with her, your sister came across as a nice person. I suspect there is a lot more to this story than you are implying. I think there were years of resentment which finally broke. And even if the will was the catalyst, your sister’s anger at the will has meant that she is doing the right thing by repudiating your brother and his nasty, insane, borderline racist book. You are doing the wrong thing by supporting this dim-witted criminal flake who happened to be your brother.

DC: As for making money off the book, I doubt he made much ten years ago, and I doubt his widow is making any now. Also, of all the attributes I would ‘award’ Dan with ass licking is not one.

Me: Really? Funny that, because he was always boasting about the number of editions it had gone through and the huge sales. Even now, it still seems to sell the odd copy. Of course, if this little runt made ten dollars or twenty thousand dollars, it makes no odds. This book is an insult to Irish speakers everywhere and should never have been published in the first place. It is a catalogue of nonsense produced by a man with no moral compass who just liked lying for the sake of it. Practically all of the ‘Irish’ in the book was simply made up by your brother. And the rest of the claims in it were plagiarised from forums, books and other sources.

And as for the ass licking, I know that he was capable of being confrontational, arrogant and bullying when it suited him. But he was also great at sliming people like Peter Quinn and Joe Lee and Michael Patrick MacDonald, as well as his fellow ‘professors’ at NCoC (i.e. anybody who was potentially useful to him). You can hear the simpering and fawning and arse-licking in some of the interviews he gave (like the one with Michael Krasny). I know, because I’ve managed to listen to them a couple of times, before the nausea got the better of me …

A couple of days later, I received another comment from Mike Cassidy:

MC: Also how are you?

Me: I’m very well thank you, how are you? Ah, I see what’s happening. All the right letters but not necessarily in the right order.

MC: I know Cadet Bone Spurs and his Russian buddies has made it acceptable to post whatever while hiding BUT who are you: Name Occuaption etc.

Me: Oh yes, they certainly has. However, I choose to post anonymously, for a variety of reasons, none of which happens to be your business. All I will tell you is this (which is totally clear from the blog anyway), that I am an Irish speaker, that I am better qualified than your brother (well, who the fuck isn’t, eh?) and that I despise your worthless creep of a sibling with every fibre of my being. I recommend you read the rest of this blog, which contains an extensive account of all the sock puppets your brother employed to attack his critics and boost the sales of his book. If hiding behind anonymity was OK for him, I don’t see why I should worry about doing it. However, my name and my qualifications and my ‘occuaption’ are not relevant, because I have never claimed that people should believe what I say because of my degrees or because of who I am.

What I have presented here are the facts. The facts which your brother ignored and twisted and replaced with his lies. If you want to take me on, then I will challenge you in the same way I’ve challenged other fools who have supported How The Irish Invented Slang. If you can find ten words that a reasonable person would say have been proven by your brother to be of Irish origin, then I will apologise to you. However, they have to be claims that your brother originated, not claims that he copied. And the evidence has to be there. For example, if you’re going to say that baloney comes from béal ónna, you have to explain why it isn’t a minced oath, and you have to prove that béal ónna existed in the Irish language. Your brother didn’t do either, of course.

Of course, this is an impossible task, and you won’t be able to do it, any more than any of the other fools have. It’s very easy to harrumph and huff and bluster and hector and bully and fly into a rage and chew the carpet and complain about the unfairness of it all and accuse me of being anti-Irish and call me names like neo-con … but finding real evidence and doing real, valid research isn’t easy. Which is presumably why your worthless creep of a brother never did any.

So, if you think you can provide the evidence your brother didn’t, bring it on. I don’t think I’ll be hearing from you again because someone who thought a few short years ago that the Irish language died out in the 1840s (as you did) knows even less about the Irish language than Daniel Cassidy. If I do hear from you, it had better be a serious attempt to engage with the facts, not another irrelevant, self-justifying rant. Otherwise I’ll simply delete it. The ball’s in your court.

Twit of the Month – August 2018

Who is the Twit of the Month this month? Well, I have been looking at the people whom I have criticised over the years, and it occurred to me that there is one notable person in Irish circles who has never been Twit of the Month, though he has been criticised greatly and often here for the support he has given to the fraud and liar Daniel Cassidy, author of the ludicrous book, How The Irish Invented Slang.

This person is Peter Quinn, a writer from New York who never missed a chance to praise his friend Cassidy in public. Quinn and people like Quinn are to blame for ignorant people thinking that Cassidy was right and that there was a grain of truth inside all of the lies.

However, the person who lies down with dogs gets up with fleas. And people like Quinn, who give resounding praise to fakes and liars because they happen to be friends of theirs, are worthless people.  

That’s why I’m happy to name Peter Quinn as the Twit of the Month in August 2018. It is well deserved.

Amadán na Míosa – Lúnasa 2018

Cé hé Amadán na Míosa i Mí Lúnasa? Bhal, bhí mé ag amharc ar na daoine a cháin mé thar na blianta, agus rith sé liom go bhfuil duine mór le rá amháin ann i saol na nGael i Meiriceá nach bhfuil ainmnithe agam mar Amadán go fóill, cé go bhfuil sé cáinte agam go mór agus go minic as an tacaíocht a thug sé don chaimiléir agus bréagadóir Daniel Cassidy, údar an leabhair How The Irish Invented Slang.

An duine atá i gceist agam ná Peter Quinn, scríbhneoir ó Nua-Eabhrac nár chaill deis riamh lena chara Cassidy a mholadh go poiblí. Tá an locht ar Quinn agus a leithéidí gur shíl daoine aineolacha go raibh cuid den cheart ag an Chaisideach agus go raibh croí fíor taobh istigh de na bréaga go léir.

Ach an té a luíonn le madaí, éiríonn sé le dreancaidí. Agus daoine mar Quinn, a mholann caimiléirí agus bréagadóirí go hard na spéire cionn is gur cairde dá gcuid iad, ní fiú sop féir iad.

Sin an fáth a bhfuil mé sásta Peter Quinn a ainmniú mar Amadán na Míosa i mí Lúnasa 2018. Is maith an airí air é.

A reply to Joe Daly

I have had a comment from someone called Joe Daly about my post on Did The English Ban Irish:

you dont take in to account the fact that kids where beat in school for specking Irish. while they might not have passed a law banning it their attitude towards the Irish did the same thing . even goin so far as to ban Catholic children from goin to school. Under the penal codes imposed by the British, the Irish Catholics were not allowed to have schools. and so started the rise of Hedge schools.

I am well aware of the history of education in Ireland. I know about the bata scóir and the scoileanna scairte. I have said repeatedly that the English were no friends to the Irish language. In the early 17th century, almost nobody spoke English in Ireland. People like myself who speak Irish on a daily basis are now a tiny minority, and that is a direct result of policies designed to elevate the status of English at the expense of Irish. As I said in the article: The fact is, of course, that the English administration in Ireland was no friend to the Irish language. Irish was progressively squeezed out of any realm of life which would have given it power or influence. I am not defending the English here.

What I am saying here (and I can’t think of any way to make it clearer) is that the Irish language was not illegal in Ireland. It wasn’t encouraged or promoted or helped to survive in any way, but it was not made illegal, probably because the inhabitants of Langerland didn’t care a damn what shepherds and woodmen and fishermen spoke amongst themselves, as long as they paid rent and taxes and tithes to a foreign ascendancy.

With regard to Irish history, the English are as guilty as hell. Why does anyone need to invent extra crimes to make them look worse?

Freagra ar Joe Daly

Chuir duine éigin darbh ainm Joe Daly barúil suas ar an alt a scríobh mé traidhfil de bhlianta ó shin dar teideal Did The English Ban Irish:

you dont take in to account the fact that kids where beat in school for specking Irish. while they might not have passed a law banning it their attitude towards the Irish did the same thing . even goin so far as to ban Catholic children from goin to school. Under the penal codes imposed by the British, the Irish Catholics were not allowed to have schools. and so started the rise of Hedge schools.

Tá go leor eolais agam ar stair an oideachais in Éirinn. Tá a fhios agam faoin bhata scóir agus faoi na scoileanna scairte. Tá sé ráite agam arís agus arís eile nár chuidigh Sasana pioc leis an Ghaeilge. I dtús an tseachtú haois déag, is beag duine in Éirinn a raibh Béarla aige. Ach anois, tá mo leithéidí féin, daoine a labhraíonn Gaeilge ar bhonn laethúil, tá muid chomh gann is a bhí lucht an Bhéarla anseo ceithre chéad bliain ó shin, agus is toradh díreach é sin ar bheartais a rinneadh d’aonghnó le stádas an Bhéarla a ardú agus le stádas na Gaeilge a ísliú. Mar a luaigh mé san alt sin: The fact is, of course, that the English administration in Ireland was no friend to the Irish language. Irish was progressively squeezed out of any realm of life which would have given it power or influence. I am not defending the English here.

An rud atá á rá agam (agus ní thig liom smaoineamh ar dhóigh ar bith lena rá níos soiléire), ná nach raibh an Ghaeilge in éadan an dlí in Éirinn. Níor spreagadh í, níor cothaíodh í, níor cuidíodh léi teacht slán ar dhóigh ar bith, ach níor cuireadh cosc uirthi le hacht ná reacht ná dli.  Is dócha gur chuma sa tsioc leis na Sasanaigh cad é a labhraíodh aoirí nó iascairí nó coillteoirí Gaelacha eatarthu féin, a fhad is a d’íoc siad cíos agus cáin agus deachúna le huasaicme Ghallda.

Maidir le stair na hÉireann, tá Sasana chomh ciontach leis an diabhal. Cad chuige a mbeadh ar dhuine ar bith coireanna breise a chumadh le cosúlacht níos measa a chur orthu?

Amadán na Míosa, Mí Iúil 2018 – Matthew Walther

Is é Amadán na Míosa an mhí seo ná diúlach darb ainm Matthew Walther. Is iriseoir é, dar leis féin. De réir cosúlachta, is comhfhreagraí náisiúnta é le The Week (cibé rud é sin) agus tá cónaí air in Michigan. Níl a fhios agam an Gael nó Meiriceánach nó Gearmánach é. An t-aon eolas atá agam air ná gur Caitliceach den eite dheis agus conspóidí gairmiúil é. I ndiaidh an Reifrinn ar an ghinchealú i mí Bhealtaine, chuir sé an méid seo suas ar Twitter:

Ireland is such a joke. “Look at us, we’re nice modern anticlerical progressives. Our prime minister has a quaint title in a made-up language invented by Yeats and Lady Gregory out of boredom. We kill babies and allow corporations to hoard their ill-gotten gains here.”

Tá seantaithí againn ar chonspóidithe gairmiúla den chineál seo in Éirinn: ní gá ach Conor Cruise O’Brien agus Kevin Myers a lua. Agus mar a bhí amhlaidh i gcás an Cruiser agus My-arse, bíonn daoine mar seo ag déanamh dhá rud: déanann siad simpliú ar cheisteanna atá casta íogair (we kill babies) agus an méid atá le rá acu, níl ann ach raiméis sheanchaite neamhbhunúil. Níl Gaeilgeoir ar bith beo nár chuala miotais gan chiall den chineál seo na céadta uair roimhe.

Agus creid uaim é, is miotais iad. Ní raibh Gaeilge ar bith ag WB Yeats agus cibé Gaeilge a bhí ag an Bhantiarna Gregory, ní raibh baint ná páirt aici le hathghléasadh na teanga san Athbheochan, cibé ról a bhí ag an leadrán sa scéal. De ghnáth, deirtear gur de Valera a chum an Ghaeilge, ach nach cuma – níl ceachtar den dá leagan ceart!

Agus ar ndóigh, cé go ndearnadh a lán athruithe ar an teanga le cúpla céad bliain anuas, tá bunús na bhfocal agus na struchtúr sa teanga a bheag nó a mhór mar a bhí dhá chéad bliain ó shin. Rinneadh aistriúchán Bedell den Bhíobla sa tseachtú haois déag ach is beag rud sa leabhar sin nach bhfuil intuigthe ag duine ar bith a bhfuil Gaeilge mhaith aige nó aici sa lá atá inniu ann.

Mar sin de, níl sa raiméis seo ach bleadaireacht dhrochmhúinte aineolach.

An t-aon teachtaireacht atá ag féinspéisithe gan tallann mar Walther ná: Is mise an duine is tábhachtaí ar chlár an domhain. Éistfear le mo ghlór! Caithfear éisteacht! Mar sin de, cuimhnigh ar ainm Walther. Agus má fheiceann tú an t-ainm sin ar alt, ná léigh é. Níl rud ar bith fiúntach le rá ag leithéidí Walther, agus is beag is fiú do chuid ama a chur amú lena gcuid amaidí.