Last time I pointed out the doubts of the pseudo-historians about Newton, and they actually came out to refute it, which I quite like, at least that's the real discussion, isn't it? Although I admire their courage even more, I can't wear these hats that question Chinese history! I'm not like them who write thousands of words and don't get my point through at the end. So, let's get straight to the point.
They say I take things out of context, which makes me want to laugh a little, compared to their regular operations, how can I take things out of context? Look at their exact words again:
It is concluded that in 1804 it was established that q and x had not yet been included in the 26 letters, so that the total number of letters at that time was only 24. In other words, q and x may appear in an English word, but none of the English words led by them are born. ”
These words sound anticlimactic, q and x appear in words, but because there are no words that start with them, there are only 24 letters? I disagree.
Let's take a look with their own evidence. In 1804, the word "index" in the red circle, how many letters? If you say 4, then x is one of the letters; If you say it's 5, then I admire your ability to tell nonsense with your eyes open.
Of course, the pseudo-historians also questioned whether I had read the Treaty of Nanjing. Then they came up with this diagram:
Hehe, they are really funny, they don't even understand the content of the "Treaty of Nanjing", are they embarrassed to say that they know Chinese history? I'm embarrassed to ask if I have read the content of the "Treaty of Nanjing"?
In the picture, they say "But strangely enough, the initials of Queen and Ques in the Treaty of Nanking are written differently." ”
Do you think it's strange? I also find it strange because that's not "ques" at all, it's "d"! That's not Q, it's D! That's dues! In the second article of the Treaty of Nanjing, the original text of the pseudo-historical school drawing a horizontal line is "just duties and other dues of the Chinese government"! dues！That's two different letters! Who hasn't read the Treaty of Nanking now? You have really refreshed my perception of the lower limit of pseudo-history.
Let the pseudo-historians see that this is a passage in the "Treaty of Nanjing", is the one who draws the red line J or I? Look again at their rebuttals about the use of j and i.
I can only say that, according to the abilities and knowledge of the pseudo-historians, it does cause difficulties in identification. But we just need to list the facts and come up with the Treaty of Nanjing.
Also, in addition to the Treaty of Nanjing, there is also the Treaty of Nebuchu in Latin, and it is necessary to remind the pseudo-historians that the Treaty of Nebuchu was signed in 1689. Could the pseudo-historians say whether the redline is j or i? Now can the pseudo-historians understand when I and J are mixed?
If you still don't understand, take a look at their offer of A New Abridgment of Ainsworth