Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM 1: "Keith still did not retract his misrepresentation and never has" [Example of Steve Shaw lying], and still did not accurately reproduce Wheatcroft's remarks in the "explanatory" post of his you reproduce". [Oh yes he did as shown in my previous post and by the fact that the particular passage was posted a further five times subsequently in the thread in question - a FACT that you seem to have conveniently forgotten.] 2: "The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy." Oh yes and here we read your views on how "crucial" they were: Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM "You're still rattling on about those books as if I give a toss. I haven't read them and have never used them in any argument about the whys and wherefores of the war." Crucial Indeed As to you never using them = another Shaw lie - you have stated in argument that the works of the revisionist historians (1929 to 1969 - which includes work by Taylor and Clark) are of equal weight and importance to work done later. If memory serves me correctly you and the "pack" had a little theme going for a while with adjectives describing various "historians" Keep going Shaw, let me know when you reach Australia.
|