BS: I am not an historian but........

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 09:33 AM

"last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us"
One??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:08 AM

I'm not excluding other possibilities, Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:53 AM

we are not going to change each others opinions

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:57 AM

I always thought we were! Thanks, Al, I shall revise my views now :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:16 AM

Opinions van cary. The appalling incompetence, contempt and arrogance of military leaders of the time however are a matter of historical record.

That's why revision is such a wicked stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:23 AM

"we are not going to change each others opinions"
Maybe not Al, but one of these days somebody (no names, no pack-drill) is going to have to take a long, hard look at his public image
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:40 AM

can we have a christmas truce please,could you all go off and play football for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:48 AM

I change, or at least tweak, or undergo the tweaking of, my opinions all the time, frequently as a result of what I read here.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 12:04 PM

As long as I have been on this form you have filled this forum with your racist and sectarian filth

Lies. resorting to personal attack and lying smears.. You might as well admit you have lost.

"Neil Faulkner in a bookshop"
Amazon!
They sell anything and everything.
How about a real bookshop?
How about a library?

No they don't - you have been given examples of where they contradict what you

Not true.
Not one single proper living historian.
You can not name one!

No single historian has ever confirmed all of your three points - not one -
Margaret Macmillan to name just one.

Not all historians have written about all three.
No living historian has contradicted any of my claims, except extreme Thatcherite Ferguson who only does one.

THERE IS NO SINGLE VIEW ON THE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR ONE, AS ALL YOUR OWN HISTORIANS HAVE STATED

True, but on my 3 points they all agree.

- YOU ARE MAKING IT UP

I don't need to. They really do say what I say because I learned it from them.

Why, last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us.

Not true Steve.
I am scrupulously accurate with all my quotes. I just paste them in.
If that is not true, put up any false quote I have ever made.
You are being dishonest Steve.
When I did quote that Guardian paragraph I quoted it in full, with a link.
I later just referred back to it.

"last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us"
One??
Jim Carroll

No.
Not one.
Put one up if that is not true.

The appalling incompetence, contempt and arrogance of military leaders of the time however are a matter of historical record.

It should be very easy to quote one of the historians agreeing that then.
Why can't you?

Maybe not Al, but one of these days somebody (no names, no pack-drill) is going to have to take a long, hard look at his public image

All those people caught lying I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 12:47 PM

After your little rant you still fail to produce one scrap of evidence that you have ever put up the proof that you claim - can you imagine the satisfaction it would give you to simply do so and prove us all wrong?
We seem to have moved on from "!rel historians" to "real bookshops" - 'curiouser and curioser'
Your racism in "Pakistani Implants" is a matter of record, so your rejection of historians as being either too "right wing" or "too left wing" really is a joke - the cream on the Christmas pudding, in fact.
I would say that is just about you done and dusted, wouldn't you.
We're all mad and you are the only sane one
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

Really scraping the barrel now Keith if you reckon Amazon is not a bookshop. Dunno about anyone else but I get all my books (yes and lots of other things) from there now. Still, if you insist. Is Waterstones not a bookshop either? Anyway. I have mentioned 2 historians who disagree with you and you keep evading the issue. They are historians. They are alive. They disagree with you. What other criteria should they meet?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM

I keep telling you. He only has two books and one isn't coloured in yet. Give the man a chance!


(When I typed "give" just then the iPhone turned it to "Gove". Even my phone was him weighed up!
😎

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM

"What other criteria should they meet?"
They need to agree with Keith before they qualify as historians, they can't be too left or too right and can't have been born earlier than 2002 and they must be qualified, unless they work for the Daily Mail or the Guardian (and say the right thing, of course) - pay attention and you'll soon get the hang of the rules
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:39 PM

Did I mention that they all had to agree with Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:43 PM

Keith; seriously mate, leave it. They really aren't worth it. Step back and look at 'em. Purblind imbeciles every one; convinced of their own rectitude while they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la" as loudly as they can. The puerile insults, the venom and the sheer unpleasantness of the comments must make you realise you're dealing with idiots. To quote GBS, don't wrestle with pigs. You get dirty and they enjoy it.
Get yourself above the line and leave the BS to the ignorant and the childish. Any sane and sensible person knows you're right - but stay here and you're just wasting your energy swatting mosquitoes. No matter how many books or papers you reference, someone will come back with "Yeah, but you smell and your mum does too". It really isn't worth a tuppeny damn. After all, it's not as if anyone with a serious interest in history would turn to the Mudcat for enlightenment. Would anyone honestly expect to see a thread here referenced in any other than a musical context?
Anyway, time for me to go back to lurking for another few years until the present crop of yahoos and trolls moves on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM

"Keith; seriously mate, leave it. They really aren't worth it. "
There's always one who keeps his head down and lets hiss oppo dig themselves deeper into the shit - the nips out and claims "I was with you all along mate"
If you have anything positive to add please do - all Keith has proved is what he entitled this thread - he certainly is no historian - it takes a bit off effort - not to mention a bit of reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:01 PM

Wot Gervase said earlier:

Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it?

And wot Gervase sez now, irony-free of course:

Step back and look at 'em. Purblind imbeciles every one; convinced of their own rectitude while they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la" as loudly as they can. The puerile insults, the venom and the sheer unpleasantness of the comments must make you realise you're dealing with idiots.. To quote GBS, don't wrestle with pigs. You get dirty and they enjoy it.
Get yourself above the line and leave the BS to the ignorant and the childish. Any sane and sensible person knows you're right - but stay here and you're just wasting your energy swatting mosquitoes. No matter how many books or papers you reference, someone will come back with "Yeah, but you smell and your mum does too". It really isn't worth a tuppeny damn. After all, it's not as if anyone with a serious interest in history would turn to the Mudcat for enlightenment. Would anyone honestly expect to see a thread here referenced in any other than a musical context?
Anyway, time for me to go back to lurking for another few years until the present crop of yahoos and trolls. moves on.

Hey, laugh a minute, aren't you Gervase? Yet we're supposed to respect you cos you're feted as some kind of Mudcat elder who's bin around for fifteen years or decades or wottever it is. You know, Gervase, yes, you the Gervase who is a blast from Mudcat's glorious past, the truth is, ol' chum, going from this brace of posts, you're just an old burnt-out troll with nothing to say, aren't you. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, Keith's uncle, maybe. Crawl back into your hole, why don't you. Just a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:07 PM

I keep telling you. He only has two books and one isn't coloured in yet. Give the man a chance!
Cor. You're a roistering roustabout of a keyboard warrior, aren't you? Or are you? You might be a snivelling piece of pusillanimity, getting his jollies by sticking his tongue out at the grown-ups. With a moniker like that it's hard to tell. Hang fire or squib?
Now tell me. What are the chances of you saying that to Keith in the flesh. To his face. Of squaring up to him in a public space and letting rip with that sort of thing, without a pseudonym behind which to hide?
I post under my own name, and many of the older lags here have met me and know who I am. Care to put your name into the public domain?
I thought not.
Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:32 PM

I don't think I ned to say anything else really. Thank you Mr Shaw. Your eloquence does you and the Mudcat proud.
And the Brits scratch their heads and wonder why the Americans think they're such jerks...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:38 PM

Ooh, Steve! Called out on your playground bullying and you start to squeal. Why don't you run to teacher and start tugging at her skirts?
The behaviour I've seen on this thread is pathetic. If all you can offer is childish insults and personal abuse, it's probably best to stick to crayons, poppet. If you disagree with Keith's premise, do it like a grown-up. Cite primary and secondary sources and argue your case. But perhaps it's easier to join in the gang and just start kicking.
Reading these replies reminds me why I left the Muscat and why I felt ashamed to be part of the English folk scene.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:41 PM

My name is Steve Shaw, Gervase. So what's your second name then? Piss, old fruit, or get off the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:44 PM

Instead of marching in when it's all over bar the shouting, why not answer some of the questions Keith's refused to - no?
Thought not - you must be right then - that'a the way he works
"If all you can offer is childish insults and personal abuse,"
He's had the arguments - now you have it - your turn to respond to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:48 PM

Incidentally, Gervase old chap, whatever else I do here I don't squeal. Cool as a cucumber, me. It's me mantra, darling. Yes, quite annoying, I know. I let others squeal around me. Your sudden resurrection, whoever you actually are, is the best example of over-loud squealing I've heard here for ages. Refreshing, in a way. Now are you or are you not Keith's uncle?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:48 PM

One last sally...
If you have anything positive to add please do,/>
I have neither the wish nor the energy to waste going back over this thread, but you will find that most academic historians writing since 1970 will largely agree with what Keith has said.
I could provide you with a bibliography but that would be a pointless exercise, and I sincerely doubt you would ever read any of the works cited, and would simply prolong this pointless exercise for another 600 odd posts. But, if you actually did want to learn some history, why not expend a little bit of effort in actually reading it, rather than ranting. It's out there and remarkably easy to find. And most of it's free.
Yeah, we all love the poignant, shroud waving stuff and to get maudlin over a jar or two. It's all happened again and again and again and again, an' all that. But reality - well, dammit - reality has a nasty habit of being slightly more complicated than sentiment or received opinion would have it. Ain't that a bugger?
And it's Max Hastings, by the way, not Hasting. But it doesn't appear that accuracy matters much in this current scrap.
Nighty night.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:55 PM

You could ask Keith to read it, Gervase old fellah, cos he hasn't. And, as for accuracy, didn't you see what Keithie did here last week? Don't mention the Guardian. Keith mentioned it twice and he didn't get away with it (with apologies to Basil Fawlty - oops, wrong war...)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:21 PM

Forgotten how to Google, Steve? Never mind. Though I do wonder what brought you here. Looking at your posting history, the only faintly musical contribution I can see in the past couple of years is a snide remark about Eliza Carthy.
Oh well. Crack on.
I left when the forum was taken over by BNP sock puppets (which adds a little spice to the Googling of my name), but it seems that the Augean stables are still full of BS. I'll bow out and leave it to you to continue smearing excrement over the walls.
Pip pip.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:44 PM

Well, Gervase, you bow out more often than Frank Sinatra. I mean, that's twice in an hour. The Comeback Kid par excellence, aren't you just. So sorry to hear of your little spat with the extreme right. Perhaps Keith and Ake, two men of that predilection, could have offered you strategies apropos, but you probably didn't ask. As for my little do with Eliza, gosh that was a lot longer ago than in "the past couple of years". As you purport to be a bit of a stickler for accuracy (except in the case of Keith, who clearly has the bar lowered right to the ground in that regard in your opinion), I just thought I'd mention it. Nighty night, Gervase. Don't let the sword of truth bite. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 03:00 AM

In the meantime, Keith calls anybody who has actually read anything about WW1 as psychopathic liars. He then puts words in your name you never said in order to make you look a cunt.

Are you sure it is others who are "trolling" Gervase? You see, if you read up, Keith is pushing an agenda where he selectively quotes and misquotes, calls any historian not impressed with revision a "lefty" and even started waffling on about Adam Smith being a knight in shining armour to Marx's devil.

If you want to defend UKIP be my guest, but like most of his comrades, he ends up a laughing stock.

No. Read up why situations occur before looking at them. Keith started this thread to heap scorn on people who have reached their own conclusions on history. That he needs conclusions written for him is his problem.

If, as you say, you have been following Mudcat so long, you also know he has form. Going back a long way, refusing to accept society's dim view of war and the disgusting way military leadership and inept MOD waste public money and go looking for the sympathy card whenever they come under scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 03:10 AM

This is getting more and more hilarious. I thought it had reached it's climax with Amazon is not a book shop but Gervase has bested that. Come on, G, don't give up now. I don't find your namesake particularly funny but you have got it made man. Thought of writing comedy sketches for a living?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 03:47 AM

This is about the dozenth thread Keith has driven to destruction with his arrogance, his ignorance and his desire to "win".
His stonewalling tactics, his dishonesty and his last-man-standing approach to subjects he obviously has no interest in (certainly not enough to have read up beforehand) have driven people away from subject after subject they obviously do have an interest in, robbing the rest of us of their knowledge and experience.
In the past, his extremism has infringed British laws - it certainly has made Mudcat an uncomfortable place for ethnic minorities.
My suggestion, that, should he continue in his behaviour, he should be boycotted is a serious one - as far as I am concerned, Keith has ruined enough interesting subjects.
Seasonal greetings to all (including Keith)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:13 AM

Amazon is hardly a selective bookshop.
They sell anything and everything.
Does any real bookshop in the world stock Faulkner's WW1 book like they do proper historians?
No.

I have quoted enough historians who hold my views.
Just in the last few weeks, Pennel, Philpott, Macmillan, Bond and others.
All agree my points.

You people just play games.
You claim there are other historians, but you will not name them.
Why is that?

Faulkner is a joke.
We could all put up wacky extremists, but that is all you can put up.

Apart from ridicule and insults, you have nothing to say.

Put up some names of real historians, or you have lost.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:22 AM

Thank you for making my point so well
Have a good one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:29 AM

Does any real bookshop in the world stock Faulkner's WW1 book like they do proper historians?
No.

Do you ever follow the links I put, Keith? I have already pointed out that Waterstones sell it. How about Bookmarks? Or if that is a bit left wing for your tastes, how about The book depistory?

All beside the point anyway. He is still a real historian. he is still alive and he still disagrees with you.

Two lines from you last missive -

Apart from ridicule and insults, you have nothing to say.

and

Faulkner is a joke. We could all put up wacky extremists, but that is all you can put up.

You are happy to ridicule and insult someone who has dedicated his life to the study of history yet when someone ridicules you you take offense? You really are taking the piss now.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:33 AM

Remind me what the point of this thread is, please?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

Oh - And if you still feel that Neil Faulkner is a joke and a wacky extremist it may interest you to know that History Today magazine disagree with you. I quote "Matthew Shaw, a curator at the British Library, came in on the conversation and suggested that we carry on the debate at the BL and a date was fixed for January 17th. History Today and the curators at the British Library tweeted the details of the event – there wasn't enough time to print any publicity material – and last night 300 people ( sell-out audience) turned up to listen to Gary Sheffield, along with other historians of the Great War – Annika Mombauer, Dan Todman and Neil Faulkner – discuss its origins, its course and its legacy." If all living historians agree, what is there to debate? Interesting eh?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:54 AM

Richard, i would guess that is a rhetorical question but, just in case, and for the benefit of anyone else interested, this post from Keith A is what started it -

I am not a scientist but I am sure that all the discoveries since 1970 are all wrong and the previous generation of Scientists were right all along.

Laughable, but a group of Mudcatters, are saying exactly that about historians on the WWI threads.
Some of them ridicule others for believing without evidence on spiritual matters but do it themselves on history.

Is it just me or are they being irrational?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 05:35 AM

In other words, Bridge, Keith started a thread to have a pop at anybody who disagrees with his rather place and white views, and then gets angry when it gets the reaction it deserves.

I love it especially when people come on and say "stop picking on him, he is genuine."

Oh, he's the real deal alright....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:13 AM

The debate about WW1 started earlier.
I was ridiculed and insulted for expressing views which are in fact mainstream historical opinion.

If you ridicule the views of mainsteam historians, you make yourself ridiculous.
You people have.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

All these historians have supported oone or more of my points.
None have contradicted any of my points.

Saul David, Nigel Jones, Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson,
Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown,
Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, William Philpott,
Tristram Hunter, Dan Snow, Ian McMillan, David Renolds, heather Jones,
Jane Winter, Pierre Purseigle, Brian Bond, Daniel De Groote, Jeremy Paxman/OU History Dept.

You might not agree, but there is no cause for ridicule or insult.
It makes you ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:22 AM

History Today Magazine: ...along with other historians of the Great War – Annika Mombauer, Dan Todman and Neil Faulkner
Keith A: Faulkner is a joke. We could all put up wacky extremists...
Keith A: If you ridicule the views of mainsteam historians, you make yourself ridiculous.

Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Keith A: Faulkner is a joke. We could all put up wacky extremists...
Keith A: You might not agree, but there is no cause for ridicule or insult. It makes you ridiculous.

Again, just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:59 AM

My co Musket is a historian. He proved it on this thread. Or was it another Keith V The Earth thread?

I forget.

I do recall he passes every test, including being alive
😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 08:32 AM

Ah, right. Well there is a difference. Much of history is extrapolation and supposition. No-one can go to such and such a date and say that X happened then. All there is to go on are the writings of others. The "fact" there is only that the writings exist. Compare, for example, the bible.

In science, however, one can, again for example, boil water and measure the temperature. One can carbon-date a bone within a certain range of statistical probability. One can see heritable differences between species. From there one may hypothesise a cause, and one may then devise an experiment - which could disprove the hypothesis.

It follows, then, that Keith has (should I say "as usual"?) presented an analogy that he ought to have known was a false analogy. If the explanation in the last few posts is accurate.