"Jim, you shouted this in red capitals."
I don't "shout" Keith I emphasise for the idiotic.
Nor do I lie - I have no need to the idiots usually make it unecessary for me to do so even if I wanted to.
I certainly make mistakes, and unlike some, try to acknowledge them and apoloogise for them - you have yet to reach that stage of discussion.
Want me to provide a list of all the times you have denied saying something and have bee shown that you have, and on occasion, go on to repeat what you have just denied?
One veteran doesn't make a summer Keith - what is being denied and ignored here is not what veterans said, but the process in making some people believe what they believed.You claim "all historins support what you say, having read none and having cut-'n-pasted out of context quotes from less than half a dozen.
When someone has said something that goes against your jingoism, you leap on the chair and squeal "liar", and when it is shown clearly that one of your historians obviously doesn't back your case it becomes necessary to drag out the defibrillator.
You still haven't responded to my points, though you have both (lyingly) claimed you have.
Nor have you explained why respectable journals like The Spectator should publish all those nasty lies about Max Hastings
Hastings responded to the review, by the way - and did not deny what crane had written; just that he had misunderstood one point.
(From the Spectator)
"David Crane wrote generously in last week's books pages about my 1914 history, Catastrophe. I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
A lesson to be learned by you pair in that last sentence.
Jim Carroll