Ha, with friends like that, Teribus...😂

When I've paid for a paper I tend to read articles in it. Duh. I read articles from contributors to inform myself of the various views abroad on topical issues. My Dad is an expert on WWI and has given many talks on it. From what I hear from him I'd say he takes a far more measured view than you with your Blimp-like, little Englander king-and-country angle. Pity you feel the need to do that, because you do have an eye for detail, I'd be the first to admit. But none of this makes me an expert. I am far from being that but it doesn't mean I can't take an interest and read the bloody articles! And my memory is perfectly good enough to get my antennae a-twitching a week after I've read something then see something about it that doesn't chime. The above rant from you is typically unfocused. Let me try again to concentrate your mind. It really is a quite simple: Keith told us in a thread separate from the one you're using to defend him that "the Guardian" stated that Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Both parts of that in quotes are one hundred percent inaccurate. Why do you suppose Keith thought he could get away with that? Yes he'd copied and pasted the thing a week earlier into a DIFFERENT THREAD! He hoped no-one would remember that or bother to go back to check. His agenda was that he wanted us to think that both books had been "rubbished" (his word). They were not recent works by living historians and the whole thrust of his argument was that such works didn't count. Had I not spotted what he'd done the error (aka lie) would have stood forever. As for me, I had never heard of the two books in question until I'd read the Guardian piece. I still haven't read them. I was not "using them to make my case which Keith then demolished." My sole focus was the deliberate misrepresenting of the piece. As you rightly point out, he had already quoted the extract in full (in another thread!!), AND mentioned the article again, so how come he got it so badly wrong unless he'd done it deliberately? You defend this deceitful behaviour by dismissing a clear attempt to mislead as "just a passing reference." Is that really the best you can do?