I have had a comment from Hugh Curran. Remember him?
Why the negative talk using terms like “scumbag” etc. Did I say anything at that merits this kind of comment? I admitted that I was not proficient in Gaeilge even though as a young boy I spoke it at home with my parents who were native speakers. The fact that we immigrated to Canada when I was young reduced my chance to continue as a native speaker even as all my cousins in Ireland are native speakers. The writer of the above article is vehement in his denunciation for reasons I am unable to comprehend unless he feels that any positive comments about Cassidy’s book are totally erroneous. There are at least some words in Cassidy’s book that merit consideration . I would hope the writer of the article withdraws the article or apologies for his remarks.
He claims to find my hostility inexplicable, though I’ve explained it at great length in two languages. I’ve explained why his original comments implied that he spoke Irish. And I’ve also found this on the University of Maine website:
Vox 105 – Beginning Spoken Irish Gaelic I Beginning Irish Gaelic language study using a combination of self-instruction and recitation. Class is taught by native speakers in the target language, and includes a high degree of cultural engagement.
Maybe I’m wrong but that sounds like the beginner’s course in Irish that Curran ‘teaches’. Taught by native speakers in the target language? Really?
I’ve also made it absolutely clear that yes, any positive comments about Cassidy’s book are totally erroneous and yes, there are effectively no words in Cassidy’s book that merit consideration. Cassidy’s theories and his book are an immoral and disgusting hoax and Cassidy was a criminal liar who worked for twelve years as an academic without any qualifications at all. He didn’t speak any Irish at all and his knowledge of Irish history and linguistics was entirely inadequate – like the man himself. In short, Cassidy’s book is malicious dross.
And as this is the case, I believe that the term scumbag is entirely justified. Myself and a number of other critics of Cassidy are trying to prevent people being ripped off and lied to and misinformed. And you are trying to spread the lies and misinformation and support the liar. What a scumbag!
However, I’m a reasonable man. You claim that this book is not a malicious hoax. So, you want me to remove the articles about you? Fine, I’ll do that – if you can justify your position with evidence.
So, here’s my challenge to you. Find 10 words or phrases in Cassidy’s book where there is sufficient evidence for Cassidy’s derivation that a reasonable and impartial person would accept that Cassidy got it right. Oh, and they have to be Cassidy’s claims, not claims that were already in the public domain which Cassidy plagiarised, so you can’t use words like pet and cross and snazzy and galore and slew.
Of course, there are hundreds of words and phrases in Cassidy’s book, so if it’s the mine of undiscovered gems you claim, rather than a dark malodorous empty cave containing only the echoes of Cassidy’s insanity, it shouldn’t be that hard to find ten words or phrases that fit the bill. Should it?
If you can do that, I’ll apologise and withdraw the posts about you. (Let me tell you now, you won’t be able to – Cassidy’s book is that big a pile of shite!) And if you can’t, then I will also take down the posts about you, on condition that you apologise for supporting this nonsense in the face of all the evidence and recommend that other people avoid it, which is what a decent person would have done in the first place.
It’s now nearly two weeks since I issued this entirely reasonable challenge. If Curran wants to pretend that Cassidy’s theories are valid, then he should be able to furnish us with ten words or phrases which clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that Cassidy got it right. So, where are the ten words, Curran? Having difficulty finding anything of value in Cassidy’s book?
It’s now nearly a month and we have received no reply from Curran. So, he thinks I owe him an apology, does he? Most people would make absolutely sure that Cassidy’s book was not a load of childish nonsense before recommending it to the public. Curran should have been able to provide me with ten words in the flicker of an eyelid – if he had genuinely done any research before pontificating about how great Cassidy’s book is, which he obviously didn’t!
Still waiting! Remember, this is the man who prefaced his ignorant comments about Cassidy’s book with a statement that he was born in the Donegal Gaeltacht and teaches Irish, thus implying quite clearly that he speaks some Irish (which he doesn’t) and who then proceeded to claim that 80% of Cassidy’s book was plausible and 40% likely to be correct. Where did these figures come from? Like I say, just random nonsense from a puffed-up windbag! How about giving us 10 examples from that 40%, eh Curran? Should be easy if you weren’t talking shite …
Months have gone by and we have still heard nothing from Curran. I am not surprised that he hasn’t risen to my challenge and provided ten words from Cassidy’s ridiculous book that are correct because there simply aren’t ten decent and defensible claims in the entire book. However, I thought that someone who claims to believe in the least selfish and pompous of religions would be able to say that they made a mistake and apologise for supporting this nonsense. Apparently not …