So, no examples of how I disregarded any facts then? What a surprise. Are you not even willing to confirm that you remember me stating specifically that I did not dispute your statements? My single contention in any of those threads was that you could not say that all historians agreed with you. You have pointed out that by all historians you meant only those who satisfy your exacting criteria, who's work you have actually read, agreed with you. I call that a win-win. You win with your definition of all historians. I win with my definition of all historians. Good news all round I think.