Ahem - WHEATCROFT!!!! - Steve Shaw - LYING GIT

"You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once". - [Steve Shaw LIE]

SHAW'S WHEATCROFT SAGA

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"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."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

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

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

That is the actual exchange you lying git, so where did he say it more than once?

Just remember folks that everytime Steve Shaw mentions WHEATCROFT (With or without the "Ahem" or the "Wheee"), all he is in fact doing is pointing up the fact that he is a lying bastard who has been caught out, who is too cowardly to acknowledge or own up to HIS mistake (Unlike Keith A of Hertford who Shaw and his pals have been stalking and mobbing on this forum now for over four years).

Oh by the way Shaw, couple of weeks have gone by now, and guess what? I'm still here, bobad is still here, Akenaton is still here, Iains is still here, Keith A of Hertford is still here - Your prediction was that bombarded by inane waffle from you and your pals we'd all be driven from the forum - just chalk it up as something else you got wrong - lying git.