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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:23 PM

"but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!"
As has just been pointed out - the fraudulent claim is a reference to a specific book by Clark - nothing to do with Taylor - you took the statement out of context to implicate both
You have rejected Taylor as a historian yet his entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica (usually written by peers of the subject reads:
"P. Taylor, in full Alan John Percivale Taylor    (born March 25, 1906, Birkdale, Lancashire, Eng.—died Sept. 7, 1990, London), British historian and journalist noted for his lectures on history and for his prose style.
Taylor attended Oriel College, Oxford, graduating with first-class honours in 1927. In 1931 he began writing reviews and essays for the Manchester Guardian (later The Guardian). He continued his studies in history, and in 1934 his first book, The Italian Problem in European Diplomacy 1847–1849, was published. A second book on diplomacy, Germany's First Bid for Colonies 1884–1885: A Move in Bismarck's European Policy, appeared in 1938. Taylor was a tutor in modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1938 to 1963 and a research fellow there until 1976. He became a panel member of a BBC-TV news analysis program in 1950 and made regular television appearances thereafter. He was also popular as a journalist and lecturer.
Though often sparking controversy with his unorthodox views, Taylor nonetheless maintained high standards of scholarship. Among his more than 30 publications are The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (1954; published as volume 1 of The Oxford History of Modern Europe) and English History 1914–1945 (1965). His most widely read and controversial book was The Origins of the Second World War (1961), in which he maintained that the war erupted because Great Britain and France vacillated between policies of appeasement and resistance toward Adolf Hitler. Taylor's autobiography, A Personal History, was published in 1983."
Taylor is not rejected by historians, as you claim, o the contrary, he is still highly regarded for his honesty and accuracy.
His unpopularity with the establishment and their lackeys is based on his summing up of Britain's attitude to Nazi Germany "that the war erupted because Great Britain and France vacillated between policies of appeasement and resistance toward Adolf Hitler."
Now you've taken the first teetering steps towards linking us with your claims - how bout all those (6) historians you are so coy about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM

The Guardian.
"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."

Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

Jim, You have rejected Taylor as a historian

No I have not.
His work has been superceded and discredited by later historians.
I am not qualified to have an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
...
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM
...
Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM
...
Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

You made BOTH statements Keith and I honestly and accurately pointed out that said specifically The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Which you did. It is there in black and white for everyone to see. OK, fine, you did then change your mind but only because you were challenged by Steve Shaw. You still said the Guardian described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Why even try to deny it when you so obviously made the statement? You are doing yourself no favours at all.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:22 PM

"I am not qualified to have an opinion. "

Doesn't stop you from voicing one though does it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:31 PM

Nothing quite like being jabbed by the sword of truth, eh, Keith?

Now, as to your choice of Guardian columnist to (mis)quote, well, what about his views on Israel, Keith? Gone all quiet, have we? Apart from being a bit of a fibber, which we now know about, what else are you? A cherrypicker, or an all-or-nothing man? Do apprise us of your overall view of Geoffrey, Keith! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

Oh dear..

Looks like "futility" and WW1 do go hand in hand after all.

Eh Keith?

Keith?

😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:09 AM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book,....Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, "

You fools.
Even if I was the kind of degenerate sociopath who would lie in a Mudcat debat, I do not need to because I have already won!

The points you all ridiculed have been shown to be the views of the current historians.
You have failed to find one who disagrees, and you won't.

It was YOU who tried lying about there being such an historian!
You were exposed.
Tough.

I do not need the Guardian's scathing dismissal of that earlier work.
The historians dismiss it, so you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:16 AM

"His work has been superceded and discredited by later historians."
Then prove it has - his Britannica entry prescribes him otherwise - it says he is "controversial' - nothing more.
The views of all six historians you have claimed (but who refuse to link to) have described their own views as controversial.
You continue to write as if you have any knowledge of history and historians when in fact, you haven't a clue on the subject - arrogant bullshit.
Show us how you can possibly know Taylor's work has been superceded if you haven't read his or any other historian's writing.
As has been pointed out, you deliberately edited the Guardian posting by carefully removing the word "respectively", giving he impression that Taylor had been accused of dishonesty, when in fact it was aimed at Clarke's book - which neither of us has read, so are not qualified to pass judgement on (one article does not confirm anything).
Your arguments here, based on your hiding behind books you have not read, are ignorant, arrogant and totally dishonest
Your cowardly practice of hiding behind books you have not read, making claims you refuse to qualify and suggesting knowledge you imply don't possess, has now become a regular practice.
Time after time you have been caught out - recently you posted link to an article you had not read, denied posting it when you found it contradicted your claims, then finally, when you were left with no alternative, asked that it be withdrawn from your claimed list of supporters - that is not just dishonest, it is downright bizarre.
You certainly have proved your point - you are no historian, you have no knowledge of history, on this, or any other subject you have ever posted on
Knowledge requires having enough interest to read up on the subjects you pronounce on - I cannot recall a single claim you have made which has been made on the basis of pre-possessed knowledge on your part - you swim in a world of hastily gathered, half digested and often totally misunderstood cut-'n-pastes.
You insult the subjects you involve yourself with (often literally, as in the case of the military heroes you describe as "liars") and you insult those people who have a genuine interest in these subjects.
You really need to take a close look at yourself and ask yourself whether this is the person you wish to be know as.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:39 AM

Even if I was the kind of degenerate sociopath who would lie in a Mudcat debat, I do not need to because I have already won!

Keith, if there was such a thing as winning in this type of debate and you had indeed already won, why are you still arguing about it? The only reason I can think of is to crow about it and rub the 'losers' noses in the dirt. The act of a degenerate sociopath if ever I saw one.

And you STILL said "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." A blatant misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:57 AM

For those like me who are having trouble following this through all quotes of quotes the relevant post was
From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
and it was picked up on by GUEST, Steve Shaw in the next post.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 05:55 AM

The historians hold the same views of mine that you ridiculed.
None still believe those old myths you cling to.

You are reduced to claiming that the historians are all lying!
Funny and ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:01 AM

Guest was being rather kind to you, Keith, when he referred to your blatant misrepresentation. Big porkie would have been more like it. The really stupid thing is that you didn't have to do it. The accurate quote would have been just as supportive for you but, lazily, you sort of half-remembered it, faultily as it turned out, churned it out and failed to credit us with the intelligence to notice. A sloppy approach that would have disgraced any of your vaunted historians. Credibility totally shattered. So what are we to believe from you from now on, Keith?

By the way, any thoughts yet on the views of your favoured correspondent on Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:10 AM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book,....Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, "

It supports me not you, and I do not even need it.
It is the view of the historians that matter.
You have to lie about that, but I don't.

The current ones dismiss those old myths.
You can't accept the fact because it challenges your beliefs, and so you close your minds like any superstitious fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

How entertaining that a desperado in this thread, just like one in another thread (The Snail shall remain nameless), is now resorting to calling me some kind of a fundamentalist, in both instances following an embarrassing public inaccuracy on their part. Personally, I've never been scared to say "oops, sorry, got that wrong", then the moment quickly passes. I recommend the approach.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

It does. No one is disputing that it supports your view. But "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." is still blatant misrepresentation. Or big Porkie as Steve Shaw says. Why are you now saying you did not say that when you so obviously did and why, if you have 'won', are you still here? I just don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:26 AM

This is about historians.
I don't care about The Guardian, and certainly do not need to lie about it.
As Guest said, it supports my views anyway.

Steve, you have ctiticised fundamentalists for clinging to their beliefs in the face of hard evidence that they are wrong.
That is EXACTLY what YOU are doing here.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:38 AM

So, your answer to the accusation that what you said - "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." - is a misrepresentation is just to ignore it? And your idea of winning is to carry on fighting the same fight, even though you believe you have already won? And you call other people 'funny and ridiculous'. Ah well, takes all sorts to make the world.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

It described one as fraudulent, and the other just as vulgar.
The whole piece supports my views, so why would I need to lie about it.

Musket had to lie that the historians in his programme contradicted me, because they actually supported me like all the others do.

Will any of you be criticising him for blatantly lying to you?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:52 AM

No, Keith, "The Guardian" does not support your view. One columnist, not representing the editorial position (if there is one on historians), said that Clark was fraudulent (well, couldn't stand the charlatan meself, either) and that Taylor's book was rather vulgar. Actually, I think the Rolling Stones are rather vulgar but I still approve of them. That does not add up to the Guardian as a whole supporting your position. Porkie after porkie, Keith. Amusing in a pathetic sort of way.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

The whole piece supports my views, so why would I need to lie about it. So, why say "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." at all? That is the whole point!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:11 AM

"The whole piece supports my views, so why would I need to lie about it"

This is what you posted - your own exact words:
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."
Taylor has never been described as "fraudulent by anybody
You tell us why you lied.
You have claimed that his work has been "superceded" - where?
You claim historians back your case on all your 3 points - where?
You claim to hve put up evidence of a consensus - where?
You claim that all dead historians are to b disregarded - where did you get this mind-boggling information?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:13 AM

The whole piece does support my views.
You should read it.
Here it describes the position the paper took in 1914.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."

No need for me to lie about it.
Anyway, my case rests on the historians, not any lefty newspaper.

The historians hold the same views of mine that you ridiculed.
None still believe those old myths you cling to.

You are reduced to claiming that the historians are all lying or deluded!
Funny and ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

You claim that all dead historians are to b disregarded - where did you get this mind-boggling information?

No I do not.
Many challenged the likes of Clark and Taylor back then too.
Now there is consensus, and those views you still cling to have been rejected.
That is why you can't find one Jim.

Do you think that Montague of the Manchester Guardian was deluded into enlisting by jingoism Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:53 AM

No need for me to lie about it. But you DID lie about it. Proven beyond reasonable doubt. You said "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent." That was not true.

You now say "Anyway, my case rests on the historians, not any lefty newspaper." So, now, nothing in the Guardian can be relied on because of it's political leanings? What about the Mail? Times? Sun? All paragons of impartiality I suppose. What about the BBC you so heavily lean on? They have had many accusations of political leanings. If you remove all the support you claim from any part of the media because they may have a political agenda your foundations start to look rather shaky indeed. Dismiss political leaning by all means but if you dismiss one, dismiss them all.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:32 AM

Guest, the Guardian disparaged them both, one as fraudulent, the other vulgar.

(Synonyms of vulgar, tasteless, gross, crass, unrefined, tawdry, ostentatious, flamboyant, over-elaborate, overdone, showy, flashy, gaudy, garish, brassy, kitsch, tinselly, flaunting, glaring, brash, loud, harsh, tacky, over the top,)

Your point against me is trivial.
The piece supported me anyway, so no need to lie.
It takes a strange kind of mentality to think it worth lying on Mudcat anyway.

Musket actually did lie about what historians said in that programme.
I gave you the quotes and the link so you could see for yourself.
Why no criticism?
Because you are all him?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:56 AM

No, I am not Musket. Please feel free to check with the moderation team. You were caught misrepresenting an article that anyone could easily check. Not a trivial point as your whole argument hinges around you representing the views of various people accurately and this shows that you have not always done so. I am happy to let it lie at that but you have still not addressed the issue of why you dismiss some sources as being unreliable because of their political leaning yet will happily quote other sources that have other political inclinations. And you are STILL fighting although you believe you have already won.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:04 AM

"No I do not."
Are you mad - that has been the basis of your rejection of your rejection of historical statements that disagree with your own living historians supecede dead ones.
As you have read none of them (you have yet to show you have) this has been your sole defence of your claims, and you even refuse to back up those with links to living historians.
"The whole piece does support my views."
Where does it deal with any of your three points?
You really are something else
At least have the decency to stop faking your cut-'n-pastes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

Lefty paper? The Guardian invites occasional columnists from all parts of the political spectrum. I've read articles from extreme right-wing Zionists in The Guardian that have made me want to throw up. I've read articles by archbishops peddling their religious orthodoxy and I've read arrant nonsense penned by anti-abortionists. I've read articles written by well-meaning lefties who have managed to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've read pieces supporting Ukip and other wacky parties and I've read articles by Cameron and various Tory cabinet ministers. If you don't need the support of the leftie Guardian, I suggest you desist from cherrypicking articles from it that happen to suit your agenda. As for your invitation apropos of the article you misquoted, " you should read it", well I already did. A bit more carefully than you, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:06 PM

"Lefty paper?"
You have to remember that Keith and his ilk believe Narsty Nige Farrago and his followers 'Fellow Travellers' and believe that anybody left of them should have all freedom of speech surgically removed - in the other hand, his outbursts of racist and cultural abuse have brought down from the Mount carved in stone.
Senator Joe and Eunuch Powell would have had him canonised
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:11 PM

Guest, I did not misrepresent the piece.
He used a different word of disparagement to dismiss each of them, but I just used one.
It does not alter the contempt he expressed for them and their work.

Compare that to the total misrepresentation Musket put on here about the Coast programme.
Why no criticism?

Jim, that piece says how intelligent, well informed people like the Guardian sub-editor, although strongly anti war, were moved to enlist not by jingoism but by disgust at the German war machine.
It tells us how false perceptions were formed after the thirties by relentless propaganda from the likes of Clark and Taylor.

But all that is irrelevant to my case.
My case is that the historians have rejected those old myths, and that is why you can not find one who supports them.

Let us know when you have.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:39 PM

That's a laugh is that, Keith. You said he referred to Taylor as fraudulent, but he didn't. If that isn't misrepresentation then I'm the bloody Queen of Sheba. Tell you what. Admit that you simply ballsed up, no ifs or buts, and we'll move on, eh? That's what I do if I make a mistake and it works. Last time, I got Costa and Starbucks confused and I demeaned the wrong one. I apologised and not one person ever mentioned it here again. Know what I mean? No mud sticking and all that? But we won't forget this piece of intransigence in a hurry now, will we?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:50 PM

He contemptuously dismissed both, but using a different word for each.
I only bothered with one, changing absolutely nothing of the intended meaning.

I did not realise how desperate you people were to score the most trivial of points against me.

Any criticism of Musket's blatant lying to us?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 01:00 PM

"My case is that the historians have rejected those old myths,"
Oh dear
Link us to the proof - refusing to do so only underlines your dishonesty in making this claim
"My case is that the historians have rejected those old myths, and that is why you can not find one who supports them."
Ypou have produced sx historians who you claim (they don't and your refusal to substantiate your case proves it)
These six have all stated that they are set on changing the popular view of history - ie, they are in the minority.
Had they gained enough support for their argument we would have known about it, the teaching of history would have been turned upon its head
You have been given at least a dozen examples of historians sayying the opposite to your gallant little band YOU HAVE REJECTED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM BECAUSE THE AUTHORS ARE DEAD OR BECAUSE THEY ARE "LEFTIES" - SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO TYOUR CASE COMES FROM YOUR OWN POSTINGS - ONE OF WHICH YOU FELL ON YOUR ARSE TO DISOWN
That said, it would be extremely difficult to find an astronomer argung that the world isn't flat, or made out of green cheese - it is not an issue.
You treat these discussions as competitions and you are incredibly dishonest and extremely stupid in trying to win the prizes
Make your point by proving it, not by claiming that you've made it - you haven't, and if you had you'd b the first to rub our noses in your proof - that's the type of individual you appear to be.
Your "historian" gambit is long blown.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 01:02 PM

Vulgar and largely fraudulent not exactly synonyms are they? You cannot expect to use one word for both and get away with it. Asking anyone to criticise someone else is simply a diversionary tactic and is completely irrelevant to the criticisms leveled at yourself. Although I do notice a pattern here. The other leaders were worse, Musket tells bigger fibs, etc. Does not matter if it is true or not. It simply does not detract from the point being made. It is also a diversion from why some politically motivated pieces are acceptable and some are not. As well as the question as to what you are fighting for if you have already won.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:21 PM

Both historians were contemptuously dismissed.
Not repeating both terms of contempt did not alter anything.
No attempt to deceive.
No dishonesty.
Unlike Musket.

Why do none of you criticise his deliberate attempt to deceive us about the content of the Coast programme.

Jim, there is now a consensus so I do reject those views once held by some but now discredited.
It is not because they are dead or lefty, just proved wrong by more recent work.

You have produced not one current historian who still believes those old myths, and you never will.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:27 PM

Troubadour.

Funny, isn't it Musket, how Keith always knows more than those who were there, in any situation?

Of course I do not and never claimed to.
It is the business of historians to establish what was known and believed by those who were there.
They have, and I accept their findings.


Funny, isn't it Troubadour, how Musket always knows more than those whose business is to know, in any situation?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:40 PM

They have, and I accept their findings.

Yup, Keith - all six of 'em out of thousands.

Moron.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:45 PM

No, it just means I get out more than you.

Talking of which, got to load up. I'm going to a folk club now. Lots of explanations behind some of the songs i sing about war, with no apologists to try to look clever.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 03:13 PM

"Jim, there is now a consensus so I do reject those views once held by some but now discredited."
No there isn't and your historians have said so themselves when they describe themselves as having to correct the present popular view of the war
If there was a consensus, you could easily have shown there to be - you refuse
You are telling lies as you deliberately distorted the Guardian article - it is your stock in trade
If there is a consensuss - prove it, doesn't get more complicated than that
Jim Carroll
Throughout this argument you have rejected alternative views because they are not by qualified historians.
The Guardian article, on which you base your condemnation of one of Britain's leading and most respected historians, is by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, a tabloid journalist with no historical qualifications whatever - YOU ARE INSANE, AREN'T YOU?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 03:57 PM

You ask why you are criticised and Musket is not, Keith. I am not sure if you would accept the truth but I will try. Both you and Musket are criticised over and over again, by different people for different things. I am not even going to say whether I believe the criticism is justified in either case. That is not the question. The question is, I repeat, why are some people critical of you and not Musket, yes? Well, firstly, is that really the case? Have you gone through the threads and compared the number of criticisms you have had with those leveled against Musket? If not, I suggest you do so and come back to us with some facts rather than assumptions. If it is true that more people level criticism at you than at Musket then you need to ask yourself why the consensus is against you. If indeed the majority opinion is in Musket's favour then maybe it is something in your style of posting compared to that of Musket. I would guess that as many people on Mudcat know you personally as know Musket. So if we can exclude personal support from the issue, it may be with the online persona. Maybe, and this is the bit you will not like, more people like the Musket persona than yours? I know you may say that a lot of the support that Musket gets is simply himself posting as multiple people. I do not believe that but even if it were true then surely it proves that support for you is greater than that for Musket and that is the whole point of a debate. To get people on your side. Is that why you will not give up, even though you believe you have won? To try and get a consensus against Musket? Even if most of his supporters are made up? It does seem a pretty pointless exercise and it is not really working is it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:30 PM

Good post, guest. Now Keith, here's the thing. On the whole, I enjoy a reasonably convivial online relationship with Musket. I happen to see eye to eye with him on certain things, but on far from everything. I suspect that he's a bit less left than I am for a start. You will never in a million years see me using the language he occasionally employs. What you will see is me shutting up when you might think I'd chime in with him. That's possibly because I do not happen to agree with him. Likewise, I always notice when he fails to post occasionally when I've said summat he doesn't agree with. Thing is, Keith, he doesn't slag me off, call me a liar and tell me that I lose. And I'm the same with him. Why is that, Keith? Because we are mutual sycophants? Because we are in conspiracy against the world? I don't think so. He's seen something in me and I've seen something in him that engenders a smidgeon of mutual respect, if not agreement on a lot of things. That's as far it will probably ever go. You have been a complete, pig-headed twit in the last couple of days, Keith. You screwed up over the Guardian article but you twist and turn and writhe and wriggle and your erstwhile allies here are silent, not wishing to be tarred. Being a contrarian is great fun, Keith. I love being it myself sometimes. But you really do have to have some substance behind you first. Getting things wrong and failing to admit to what everybody here can plainly see you've done is a poor strategy, unless of course you revel in your lonely furrow. Hey, maybe you do.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:03 PM

poor old Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:58 AM

We have been restricted to only LIVING historians (who agree with Keith.
So far he has offered (without evidence)
Two living historians
Two tabloid journalists
Two army employees
One television comedian
Add a partidge in a fir tree and with a bit of work, he's got the makings of a song
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:39 AM

Best bit being, Musket doesn't always agree with Musket but rule #2 of The Tea Club states that "you will defend what Musket types, even when doing so in itself is taking the piss somewhat." It makes for interesting fun.

But here's the thing; Musket was only ever dreamt up as a concept in order to prick a few pompous bubbles. It is getting beyond its sell by date now. I post "above the line" under another name and like the other two, ask about, inform and enjoy the musical side.

But down here? Some rather weird people, let me tell you..

Musket 1. (Original) -Also uses the Musket handle above the line. Capitalist bastard who used to be a pit moggy. Almost exclusively does the co Messiah stuff with Steve and winds Jim up over interpretation of "folk" yet curiously admires Jim's work. Reckons to know people who know Keith.

Musket 2. - Err.. That'll be me. I live far from the other two but we used to work together and play in the clubs. I teach medical students and like to put up facts on the subject in such a way that blinkered bigots would blindly think are not representing reality. It is fun seeing people squirm. I also lead the way in questioning how moderation does not apply to misrepresenting public health statistics in order to justify hatred. It really isn't nice for gay members of Mudcat to come across the posts over the years from the "well known gentleman" who lives round the Loch from my husband and I. I always say if people read his posts and applied them to their loved ones, they'd be about as restrained as I am.

Musket 3. - Drinking partner of Musket 1. Spends a lot of time these days in USA since leaving NHS to work for a company making medical devices. Most likely to moan about spray on cheese. Joined the Musket idea after being shouted down by redacted when asking a perfectly civil question on a thread once.

All of us. - Knew each other both through the folk clubs and by coincidence came together in an NHS organisation which Musket 1 chaired, I advised the board through my role as public health specialist and Musket 3 was director of operations.

Musket might add to this (not allowed to detract ha ha) but I am sure we all thank guest and Steve for their analysis. But please note the difference between us and Keith.

We are, even when the subject is as tragic as WW1, taking the piss. For us, point scoring isn't having peolle agree with us, it's seeing Keith spend time researching our comments. I doubt we can ever repeat the coup the other day of having him view a programme on iPlayer with his notebook just to check up on us! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:56 AM

The Three Musketeers
The Three Muskets Here
Will the real Musket stand up (to scrutiny)?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:08 AM

And I am not a Musket at all. FWIW I can see good and bad in both. It just ain't just black and white. That's the way of the world I'm afraid, Keith. Love the phrase "The Three Muskets Here", Al. I reckon you should change them for it :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:10 AM

...In both the Muskets and KA that is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:12 AM

I'm the original and best if that helps Al? Also used to haunt some of the same clubs you did.

To be fair, the Ian behind this Musket has been confused with the background of the other two, which is a bit of a bugger.

Mind you, we will take our cue from the shareholders. The technical committee reckons a shared VPN covers IP issues and whilst Keith wants to end all disagreements with everyone (nice) but by agreeing he is right (I'll eat celery first) it seems to remain "all for one and one for getting the next round in." His insistence on "winning" precludes niceties.

Anyway, sadly for some bloke in Scotland a thread has just been closed where homophobic comments have been left for all to see, not deleted, but nobody allowed to challenge it. Shame, as in shameful.

By the way, posting as some bloke in Scotland means Musket can contradict. Err but so can he if he logs in. Oh.

As we used to say in Creswell, "more faces than the drill hall clock."

And just in case Michael is reading and wants to remember that the world spins round him
😋😋👴👴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:26 AM

So Musket lies to you and that's OK by you.
Everyone finds that perfectly acceptable conduct.
Interesting.

Jim,
No there isn't and your historians have said so themselves when they describe themselves as having to correct the present popular view of the war

The popular view is wrong.
The historians have discredited those old myths, but ordinary folk who do not follow the debate have been left behind.
Some people still think you can catch a cold by getting wet.

I have quoted all the actual historians publishing and writing on WW1.
There are not "thousands" greg.

On those basic issues they all agree.
That is why you have failed to find a single one to support you.
You never will.
There are none.

Leave me out of the equation.
I only know what I read in history books.

You either accept what they say, or claim as Musket and Jim do, that they are all lying.

I am amazed that intelligent people struggle with that dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:40 AM

I would rather listen to 100 people tell me that the sky is green than one telling me that the sky is green, he can prove it with cut and pastes from the internet, he knows it because he read it in a book and if I don't believe it I lose. Does that explain it?