"we disagree with you Jim. it doesn't make us clowns."
Didn't know you did Al - what you say has made far more sense that Keith has offered so far
Keith's clownism doesn't come from his disagreements - it is the crass way he has gone about things.
He bases his arguments on historians he hasn't read and he goes on to claim that the only opinion worth taking notice of are those same historians (which he hasn't read) - worth saying this twice.
He claims to have proved his point by providing definitive evidence from historians (which he hasn't read), yet he refuses to link us to that evidence.
In fact, all he has done is provided us with a list of names of historians (which he hasn't read), because they appear to agree with his arguments on one point or another - not one of them have confirmed, or even mentioned all of the three points he has now reduced his arguments to - not one single one (he could, of course, prove that this is not the case by linking us to them - he claims there are twelve - in fact there are around six out of around 100 historians studying World War One - he was given the list, but he says it is too big for him to read).
On the basis of this tiny number of historians (which he has not read) he claims that there is an overwhelming (if not monolithic) view of World War one which has overturned everything we have been brought up to believe over the last half century - even though these historians have admitted that they are in the minority and have set out to "change the popular view of history"
He has claimed that the only opinion of importance is that of those with a University education and letters after their name (qualified historians) while at the same time, claiming the support of a tabloid journalist (Max Hastings), with no letters after his name (unless you count a knighthood) and no formal historical qualifications.
He dismisses the word of the men who fought in the trenches (presumably because they have no letters after their name) and suggests that they are liars and attention seekers when their opinions differ with his own - a pretty disgusting way to describe those who riked their lives for Britain.
In his desperate attempt to provide evidence for his argument, he puts up a site in support of General Haig - when he finds that th writer doesn't support his case, he hastily attempts to unsay what he has just said because the writer doesn't have letters behind his name (there is a name for a society run entirely by academics - som 'ocracy' or 'archy' - I'm sure someone can remind me.
All he has managed to prove is that he doesn't even read his own postings, let alone history books.
That, for me, is a sign of true clownism - high farce, in fact.
That we all should aspire to such heights of scholarship.
Wsan't referring to anybody else Al - just Keith, so don't try to deprive him of his truely earned notoriety.
Jim Carroll