In your eyes maybe. Not my intention at all. Honi soit qui mal y pense, eh?

By the way, how do you know what Wheatcroft meant by vulgar? Is he a mate and confidant of yours (poor sod)? His words, complete with those rather important qualifiers, were "rather vulgar" for Taylor and "largely fraudulent" for Clark (and ONLY Clark, a point you seem keen to avoid). No rubbishing there. Criticism with qualification, not rubbishing. Never mind what I've read or what I'm interested in. Focus. Keith deliberately misrepresented the article in a DIFFERENT THREAD to the one in which he did his original copy and paste. He knew the piece but decided to risk misrepresenting it in order to make his case for modern, living historians only. He was already under pressure, quite right too, for sticking to that ridiculous position and he was wriggling like mad. You can read. You're good at picking up discrepancies. Take off those blinkers and have a look.