Taliking about "picking up on" or pointing out transgressions Shaw. Why are you so one sided in doing so?

On the Wheatcroft thing - "Wheatcroft, note, Teribus, not "the Guardian." - Well Wheatcroft's article did appear in the Guardian didn't it? So according to Jim Carroll's logic the Guardian was/is responsible for what it prints - Wasn't that the tack he took when accusing Boris Johnston of being "racist"? Because he, as Editor of the Spectator, allowed certain articles written by others to be printed. If memory serves you didn't see fit to correct him. Could be because you are a two faced hypocrite who firmly believes in that good old "socialist" principle "One law for the goose another for the gander".

Your case on the thread when Wheatcroft was first brought up challenged Keith A's stance related to three points put by modern day historians specialising in the period of the First World War. You challenged the statement that they were of the opinion that, in comparison to the other combatant powers involved, the British Army was generally well led. To back up your case you mentioned two works, A.J.P. Taylor's book "The First World War: an Illustrated History" and Alan Clark's "Donkey's", Keith A, myself and others pointed out that both those works had been critically reviewed by historians at the time and both had been found wanting. (Clark himself admitted that the quote from which the title of his book was taken had been made up by himself - so that would account for the "largely fraudulent", i.e. based on a falsehood.) It was also pointed out to you that any historian writing about that period in the 1960s (Taylor & Clark) did not have access to vast amounts of material available to historians writing about the subject in the last thirty years. As you based your "case" on works that were regarded as being unrefined, uneducated, illiterate (all synonyms for the word "vulgar" used in it's intended sense) and largely fraudulent that was yet another WWI thread in which your "mobbing" of Keith A did not quite pan out as you had hoped.

Now when it comes to continually dredging up past transgressions as both you and Jom have done repeatedly whenever you feel you are losing an argument, should I start doing the same highlighting yours and his? Something to do with people, stones and glasshouses comes to mind because you have dropped some real bollocks, to use your expression, over the years.