Raggytash - 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.

Tell me Raggy what was the subject of the thread that Jim Carroll harks back to 2011 and dredges up everytime he finds himself getting trounced on a thread with a completely non-related subject? Similarly what was the subject matter of the bone that Shaw has got firmly gripped in his teeth that causes him to hark back to 2014 to dredge up like Jom?

Then you find it strange that, to refute what is being said, the person subjected to these attacks goes back to those threads and that subject matter - what an utterly ridiculous comment to make.

Still it has clarified some points on both subjects:

1: Jim Carroll - "Muslim" Implant

Jim has always deliberately confused religion and culture. He thinks, incorrectly, that they are the same thing. They most certainly are not. His greatest secondary objection has been that he claimed that no sources were given and no names were supplied. Now we have:
- Comments by Jack Straw
- Guardian article from 2014
- A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
- Comments by Mohamed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html
- Comments by Mr Karmani. Article ref - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-oxford-child-sex-abuse-verdict-highlights-a-cultural-problem-but-not-a-specifically-muslim-one-8616370.html
- Suppression of news coverage. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11699179/Report-about-Asian-grooming-gangs-was-supressed-to-avoid-inflaming-racial-tension.html
- Daily Mirror 2014. Article ref - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-grooming-scandal-tearing-4508666

Now Jim will not do any research into any of these references, he always steadfastly refuses to look at any perspective of any subject about which he already has his mind made up about. He is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most bigoted and intolerant members of this forum who has to continually resort to gross misrepresentation, pure invention and lies to fuel his arguments.

2: Steve Shaw - Geoffrey Wheatcroft Article

Here is a little sampler -

Steve Shaw - 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

"Yes, I'll sort you out later over your Wheatcroft farrago when I have a minute. Gird your loins. It's not about past historical posts, Keith. It's about what kind of man you are."

I will save you the trouble Shaw. This goes back to 2014 when there were numerous threads on the forum related to the First World War. As the "Usual Suspects" were getting hammered by fact, logic and reasoning they hit upon the tactic of getting threads closed so much argument was transferred from one thread to another.

First mention of Wheatcoft's article was given by Keith A of Hertford on the 10th December 2014 (The day after the article appeared in print in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" and here it is:

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Direct quote of what Geoffrey Wheatcroft had written and the very first mention and introduction of it to the forum it is perfectly accurate. Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

Next mention we get of Wheatcroft's article is in another WWI Thread running simultaneously with the WWI, Was No Mans Land thread with the same people involved hashing over the same ground.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Ridicule because he is incapable of supporting his views except by digging up long dead historians.

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in the Guardian this week.

The "he" being referred to here by the way is Steve Shaw.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

Jim, I have been linking you to quotes from historians for over a year.
Denying that shows either stupidity or desperation.
I could sit down for half an hour copying them on to one of these threads, but no doubt you would deny it all over again.

There are several already on these threads anyway.
And, still none from your side.

Al, it is so sad that you never had a chance to know those family members.
An older cousin to my father died in France too.

They went out, willingly in the vast majority of cases, to save Europe and Britain from a cruel invader.
Their leaders were not incompetent fools, but no-one knew how to fight such a war.

There were as many views afterwards as there were survivors, but from 1918 to about 1930 they overwhelmingly believed the war to have been right and Haig and the leadership worthy.

After that Lloyd George got his knife into the now dead Haig, and class war advocates denigrated the officer class with powerful propaganda.
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Clearly a passing reference to a previous quote that Steve Shaw immediately seizes on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

I wish to pursue this statement. Give me the Guardian link please.

BUT STEVE YOU'D ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE QUOTED IN FULL BY KEITH A SIX DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR REQUEST ABOVE IN THE "WWI NO MANS LAND" THREAD.

Nevertheless you got the following responses 48 minutes later.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: Steve, here it is again.
"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

This is the SECOND time that the article has been quoted on the forum in full by Keith A of Hertford. But good ol' "nitpicking" Steve starts worrying it, even although Keith A has responded to everything Shaw asked of him.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

Hmm. Interesting that you link to an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who basically seems to disagree with everybody about everything). Couple of points, Keith. You fibbed when you say he called AJP Taylor fraudulent. He doesn't like his stuff, for sure, but that was not a word he used against him. Still, it's asking a lot to get you to be accurate, I suppose. Incidentally, you implied that it was "the Guardian" that said he was fraudulent. It wasn't. It was a Guardian columnist. The Guardian, more than most papers, invites opinion from a wide spectrum. Slightly iffier even than that is you choice of Wheatcroft in your support in the first place. I mean, have you read what he has to say about Israel, Keith? If you haven't, gird up your loins, old chap, you won't like it. Another case of Keith's cherrypicking here?

Taking "nitpicking" to new heights but here is how Keith A responded

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Now I make that just over one hour that it took Keith A to acknowledge that he had made an error and correct it and THEN knowing what a pedant you are Shaw he further corrects himself three minutes later by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.

Keith A then posts

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

I do not do "fibbing" Steve.
I was just referring back to that quote .
If you had read it when I first posted it just days ago, you would have seen the whole paragraph, and with a link so it could be seen in context.

So I was [not] being scrupulously honest, but I naturally abbreviated when I posted a reminder about it.

Perfectly reasonable explanation for the omission, especially when you consider the degree of thread "stalking" being done against Keith A by Shaw, Carroll, Raggytash, Greg F, and the Muskets, as shown by Jim Carroll jumping in to take up the baton.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively"
I suppose there's as much chance getting linked to this as there is to all your other "historian" claims!!
Jim Carroll

Gives you an idea of how much Jom keeps his finger on the pulse doesn't it, as the link Jom is asking for had already been posted on this very thread by Keith A at 17 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM. However Keith A very courteously points this out and provides Jom with the information and link he requested.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:53 AM

I gave the link just a couple of hours ago, and also when I first gave the quote a few days ago, but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

By now the "stalkers" are beginning to feel a bit foolish, Keith A has now posted or linked to the entire article THREE times and he has acknowledged his error. We were then subjected to them dropping "Cookies" and becoming anonymous "GUESTS"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:36 PM

Naughty naughty, Keith.

KA of H - "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent.""

The actual quote -

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

KA of H "I do not do "fibbing" Steve."

No, you don't do you Steve. The article did describe the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent didn't it. As everyone can see. Errrr

Keith A then states the clarified position (to any sentient human being) by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

MAKING IT FOUR TIMES WHEATCROFT'S TEXT HAS BEEN FAITHFULLY QUOTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD - Not good enough for our team of "stalkers"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
...
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM
...
Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM
...
Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

You made BOTH statements Keith and I honestly and accurately pointed out that said specifically The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Which you did. It is there in black and white for everyone to see. OK, fine, you did then change your mind but only because you were challenged by Steve Shaw. You still said the Guardian described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Why even try to deny it when you so obviously made the statement? You are doing yourself no favours at all.

Now just to "nitpick" what our anonymous GUEST states here Keith immediately corrected his mistake at 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM - When did he then repeat that the works of both were "fraudulent" after that time?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

My original reference.
The link had been provided earlier that same day.

Keith A of Hertford- PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

THE FIFTH TIME THE PASSAGE BY WHEATCROFT HAS BEEN POSTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD

The following was moved to the thread by a Mudelf as he/she thought it belonged - It is an observation from a third party on the exchanges - The emphasis and passages highlighted in bold are by me.

Subject: BS: I am not a Mudcatter, but...
From: GUEST,Gervase - PM
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:07 AM

Dropped in to look for some lyrics after a lengthy absence. Made the mistake of looking below the line. Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it? Maybe those of you who hang on here haven't noticed it, in the same way a frog doesn't notice the water in the pan getting hotter, but - take it form me - the Mudcat looks pretty nasty!
And just to add my two penn'orth, KeithA is quite correct in his assertions. Trouble is, the veil of maudlin sentimentality and ignorance which clouds the issue is more seductive than the truth.
Yes, The Great War was unpleasant, yes, the casualty rates were horrible, almost as bad as earlier wars. But nine out of 10 do those who marched off to war came home, and those who did said it had to be done. The victory of 1918 was hard won, but ultimately so successful that Hitler was inspired to base his blitzkrieg on it.
That's all Keith is trying to say, but the sentimental shroud wavers of Willie McBride seem determined to shout him down.
Not for nothing is the stereotype of a folk-singer that of a bore with his finger in his ear.

What this provokes from Shaw are a number of nasty personal attacks on GUEST,Gervase that I can post if anyone thinks it would serve any purpose in showing up Shaw for the type of man he is, but this post is already far too long.