Where was Taylor wrong? Who said he was wrong? In what context? How was the evidence counter analysed or debunked? How was any contrary evidence corroborated?

Without any of that, why are you saying what you say with conviction?

Have you any idea whatsoever how research works? There are many on Mudcat who do, yours fucking truly amongst them. Whether you research history, the sciences or literature, the process is the same. Many of the historians you wrote have done this and reached a number of conclusions on different aspects of the war.

Not a single historian you name, and you name but a few, living dead or sainted has come down with a definitive single conclusion that matches your absurd stance.

Even Terribulus has decided, hopefully, to leave whilst he might just keep some integrity.



By the way, as Terribulus isn't here, I shall do his pedantry for him. When you write the thread name, it is "a" historian, not "an" historian. At least show you understand English before telling us about reading it...