Your statement on "lying" was a direct response to my reporting what Tommy Keny told us about having volunteered and his attitude to the war immediately on joining and he he returned.
You added "I bet he and his mates had a laugh at our gullibility in believing what he said" or some such words - a direct accusation of him having lied.
ou claim that Siegfried Sassoon wrote what he did to distort and romanticise his experiences - you even accused him of lying to the children he was asked to speak to on the war.
You totally ignored the excerpt from Patrick McGill's autobiographical account, written in hospital following his being wounded at Loos - indicating that it was either unimportant or untrue.
You describe the entire output of historian Liddel-Hart, a veteran of W.W.1 as "revisionism" - making his personal experiences "lies" (he was an officer).   
"You lie about any living historians not supporting my views."
Then show us they do - so far you have given only carefully selected and unconnected snippets.
You have lied about not having been given historians with opposing views - you have had hundreds pointed out to you and have either rejected or ignored them all, as you are now and as you will continue to.
Regarding my "executions" blunder, I have been posting about executions taking place in WW1 since all these discussions began - I was under the impression that this included the Richmond pacifists, which was part of my family education,
If this is not the case it was a mistake on my part, for which I apologise, though I am sure you will continue to milk some sort of satisfaction from a genuine mistake.
As I say, if I am wrong I admit it and apologise, you haven't got round to it yet - "snivelling" remember.
I don't need to lie - you are a buffoon who spoils any case you might have by your own transparent dishonesty and idiocy - you really don't need help in this, you're doing a grand job as it is.
"You can not name or quote a single one."
More retarded repetition - you have my and everybody else's answer o that - nobody expresses the views you put forward as an analysis - you show us one who does and show us that your little band of historians are in any way united selected cut-'N-pastes just don't cut the mustard - try a book sometime (perish the thought!!).   
Imperial War, premature action, wrong shells, tendered resignation, incompetent leadership, dishonest propaganda, conned and disolusioned soldiers, profiteering recruitment, landlords and businessmen.
By the way - while were're on about apologies and withdrawals, you might make a start on the censorship of the press (which was put in the hands of the military) - there's a first time for everything!!
Jim Carroll