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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 04:59 AM

Not one assertion in that whole post is true Jim.

This whole thing can be reduced to one simple either/or.
On WW1, either all the historians are deluded, or you are.

It hardly needs saying, but you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 04:07 AM

"I claimed that Britain had no choice but to resist the German invasions."
History describe it as a war between Empires and points out that it led to the destruction of the Imperial system.
The "war against German tyranny" was no more than a wartime propaganda slogan to persuade the people that the slaughter of a generation was worthwhile.
Even those who you claim (and have yet to show) support your argument say exactly that.
You claim that it was well conducted, yet both of you are reguced to defending one General - Haig - French and Kitchener have been established as non-runner buffoons.   
You have both claimed that the "enormous catastrophes" that took place were down to the politicians and not the military - you haven't even bothered too deal with that claim with your mythical historians, but the fact that you have both stated it indicates that in fact that you are admitting that the war was appallingly run - how can you claim otherwise when you paint a picture of politicians and generals stabbing each other in the back while British youth are dying in the mud?
That is your own description of what was happening - straight out of 'Oh What a Lovely War'
You claim popular support for the war, yet you describe soldiers own accounts of the war as "lies" - that is sick.
We do know that the views of soldiers who returned wounded were heavily censored - Sassoon was committed to lunatic asylum for writing of his experiences and only released when he agreed to be silent.
A century after the war began, the contents of the forbidden diaries kept by soldiers on the front are still not general knowledge and have been made public in dribs and drabs, the overall picture of the view of those who fought are totally unassessed.
Paxman's programmes described the attitude of the war back home as "complacent" - soldiers coming home on leave to find the people acting as if there wasn't a war taking place, mass corruption within the rationing system and the better off being able to eat and drink whatever their wealth would buy them.
All the reasons for joining up in the were also well covered - you refuse to respond to them.
You have not made a single one of your points and you are now trying to add another historian to your claimed six.
You have refused to link us to your claimed support because it does not exist - your anachronistic view of the war is dead, apart from in the mind of you few flag-waving, National Anthem standers-uppers.
Even your revisionist historians (those who wish to revise the popular view of history) have not made the jingoistic claims you have - that is the stuff that Ukip and the B.N.P. go in for.
The only thing you have proved here is that you truley are not a historian and you never will be - that requires being interested enough to read a book on the subject.      
Once again you have come to a topic in order to prove the establishment is never wrong and you end up trying to save face.
I'm done here, unless you are prepared to produce proof of your claims of support - I've got better things to do with my time than waste it arguing with idiots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:26 AM

bum bum.

Don't give up the day job...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:24 AM

Had to give it up mate. Made my eyes water.

Must be allergic to midges......

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:39 PM

so Ian - you're not the gay bloke in Scotland....well that's a surprise. I thought you'd moved.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:33 PM

Jim, I claimed that Britain had no choice but to resist the German invasions.
She said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says."

I said that the people supported that.
She said"It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; "

I said that the army was well led.
She said, "A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation (incompetence) and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

Those were and are my only claims.
She supports all three and says that "new generation of British historians, among others" have "exploded" those old myths.

She also said that "some powers and their leaders are more culpable than others. Austria-Hungary's mad determination to destroy Serbia in 1914, Germany's decision to back it to the hilt, Russia's impatience to mobilise, these all seem to me to bear the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of the war."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:18 PM

Blind men describing an elephant...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents "
Nobody has argued they "all" were, but her statement indicates that she believes some where
One more time - nobody has supported Clark's boot - a red herring
You claim Britain had no alternate - she says all sides failed to seek peaceful means
You claim that it was a war against German tyranny (your words)
She says it was a war between Empires and actually stared around 1905 with conflicts over territory
You say that it was German aggression which started the war
She says it was wrong to blame any one side, that all were to blame.
You continue to lie
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:55 PM

Some Musket In Scotland, are you also an acclaimed and prizewinning historian with a string of definitive books behind you?

I think that it is more likely that you are wrong, than that all the historians are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:51 PM

She says, "The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

That is clearly saying it is wrong to denigrate the British Army leaders, and that the new generation of historians all say the same.

You people all ridiculed and insulted me for saying that.
You were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:50 PM

i'm eminent too, according to my husband.

Have been for decades if you add my Mum's opinion.

Keith, any chance of extending your sources of where your learning comes from? More historians? History channel? back of cornflake packets?

Anything for crying out loud, but just open your eyes and mind. Your insular parochial patronising is getting on peoples' tits. How can we ever debate the atrocities, poor leadership, jingoism and propaganda surrounding WW1 whilst you keep chipping in with odd irrelevancies from cherry picked half sources?

Fer fooks sake.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:43 PM

"She says it is wrong to denigrate the leaders"
She says it is wrong to denigrate any leaders or any single nation
You are deliberately choosing half statements to prove support
You are a moron to even claim having won anything - that is not what these discussions are about.
One thing is certain - you will be laughed out of existence if you ever mention the words "historian" or "you lose" ever again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

She says it is wrong to denigrate the leaders.
You disagree.
She is an eminent historian with decades of research behind her.
You are some bloke from Scotland sometimes called Musket.

You ridiculed and insulted me for saying just what the historians say.
I learned it from them.

You said "those historians should know better."
You really imagine yourself superior to them all.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

All out of context Keith
She claims that there was no evidenced to blame any single nation for the war
A contradiction to one of your points
She says that there in no evidence of overwhelming support for the war
A contradiction to one of your points
She says it was a war between Empires
A contradiction to one of your points

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Som.. Err Ok, as Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

Does she address why the policy of sending waves of men into enemy fire wasn't "back to the drawing board" after the first tragic failure? Does she say why the only strategic change was to use more stretcher bearers and more admin staff to deal with the telegrams?

Sheffield does. And Taylor. Clark refers to it for that matter.

People who don't need historians for a ready made view may also take a view, given that happened.

Perhaps they may assess it in light of an absurd claim that the men were well led?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM

More quotes of Macmillan,
"But seeing the war through the poetry of Wilfred Owen, who came to prominence decades after his death, is dangerous. Most of the poets who were widely read at the time – notably Rupert Brooke – were writing patriotic verse, and the "futility of war" line only emerged later. "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says."

"The great war was nobody's fault or everybody's," she writes. But "some powers and their leaders are more culpable than others. Austria-Hungary's mad determination to destroy Serbia in 1914, Germany's decision to back it to the hilt, Russia's impatience to mobilise, these all seem to me to bear the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of the war."
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:16 PM

She says, "It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; "
And,
"Throughout the 1920s, the British mourned their lost ones as heroes who had fought in a good cause, not as helpless cannon fodder.
It was only at the end of the decade that doubts crept in;"

That is one of my points.

She says, "It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. "

That's another of my points.

She says, "commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. "

That is all my three points.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:08 PM

Your link to Margaret McMillan is totally irrelevant to this argument as she does not cover a single aspect of what is being discussed except to describe the war as one of "attrition" which you both have denied
More 'smoke and mirrors'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

"I have expressed no view about events before the German invasions, so why quote Macmillan on that?"
Becayuse that is all she covers - she discusses nothing else - you claim her as a supporter - on what?
Where has she commented on recruiting, the blame for WW1 or how it was run?
Pratt
Nobody claimed the generals were cowards and no one has defended the "Donkey's" book
Sge clearly stated that the blame for the war was shared by all sides.
She is typical of all the historians you have claimed as supporters, as you have adequately illustrated - she supports nothing you have said - end of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:21 PM

It has just been republished as an e book.
That will be why the printed versions are remaindered.
Amazing run for a history book though.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

It was published 12 years ago, and is described as a best seller.
That is a surprise if not a mystery.
A history book that costs £79 hardback or £21 paperback and it sold!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:04 PM

What mystery does that solve Al?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:58 AM

The mystery solved!

The Works (that great emporium of remaindered rubbish that once stocked my line dance album alongside Gerry Adams' memoirs) has got the at half a big picture book called The First War by the much vaunted Gary Sheffield. its right next to 50 Shades of Grey.

If only Haig and Von Luddendorf had had a 'safe' word.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM

I have expressed no view about events before the German invasions, so why quote Macmillan on that?

Here are some more relevant quotes from her, covering all my 3 points, and the fact that historiography has moved on.

"Yet far more novels and memoirs at the time were either ambivalent about the rightness or otherwise of the war or, indeed, saw it as something that had had to be fought. And not everyone who had been in the war wanted to forget it."

"Now is surely the right time to challenge the accepted views. The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. And was the war just a dreadful mistake or was it about something? At the time people on all sides thought they had a just cause. It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; "

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:51 AM

Jim. Musket Co-operative. Stop it please! Just let Keith do his little victory dance and walk off into the sunset. It is obviously important to him and will make his Christmas. Besides, just imagine another few weeks of this:-(

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:40 AM

You even lie about Margaret McMillan backing your case
She wrote only on the causes of World war on and said from the outset that the claaim of blame was "inconclusive"
She never wrote about support for the war or how it was conducted
Jim Carroll

While there is broad agreement about the consequences of the war, the causes have always been contentious. Who, or what, was to blame? What role do we attribute to underlying trends such as militarism, the arms race and imperialist rivalry? How important was the system of alliances that divided Europe into two armed camps? Then there is the question of which power or powers carry the greatest responsibility for the coming of war. The victorious allies stuck the blame on Germany at the Versailles Peace Conference, in the "war guilt clause". The idea that Germany was the prime mover has enjoyed a brilliant, if chequered career ever since. It was widely questioned in the interwar years, not only in Germany but in Britain and the US (although not in France). After Hitler's war, though, English-speaking historians were more likely to see a pattern of German aggression stretching back before 1914, and in 1961 the Hamburg historian Fritz Fischer made the controversial case (bitterly opposed by most German historians) that Germany had mounted a pre-emptive strike. The "Fischer thesis" became the orthodoxy for a while, but has been plausibly challenged in recent years by historians who have pointed the finger almost everywhere except at Berlin. The current consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. There is, finally, the question of the decisions made by a score or so of men (and they were all men) in half a dozen capitals. Did it matter that during the July Crisis both Austria-Hungary (Berchtold) and Russia (Sazonov) had foreign ministers who were weaker and less decisive than their predecessors? Would it have made a difference if Austria's chief of staff Hötzendorf had been less of a fire‑eater or German chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg less of a fatalist? In our post‑structuralist age, the importance of individuals within the decision-making process has returned to centre stage, along with counterfactual ("what if?") history.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

As it is, you lose. Yes, that's it Keith. Someone has lost, which means you win. Quit while you are ahead. Please!!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:03 AM

You obviously have no intention of substantiating your dishonest claim, which is proof tht it is just that - dishonest
To revert to your own values, checkmate - think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:03 AM

Your claim that nobody has given examples of historians is a simple lie - you have been given dozens which you have rejected

My claim was that nobody has given a single example of a living historian.
I know that there used to be some who pushed those old myths you cling to.
Now there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:00 AM

I have done Jim, and everyone has read them over the last year plus.
The most recently repeated one was the Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan.
Is she deluded or a liar or both?

There are all the historians on one side, and you people on the other.

Sorry, but I still believe the historians.
For that you think it appropriate to ridicule and insult.

If it was an insult competition you would win.
As it is, you lose.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

"Jim, I have provided links and quotes for about a dozen historians."
You are continuing to lie - you have listed about half a donzen and you have given no quotes whatever which back up your three claims - none
YOUR SOLUTION IS SIMPLE - INSTEAD OF CLAIMING YOU HAVE GIVEN QUOTES, LINK US TO THEM
Your claim that nobody has given examples of historians is a simple lie - you have been given dozens which you have rejected
What kind of an idiot are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_nh4wKKlhE

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:36 AM

Jim, I have provided links and quotes for about a dozen historians.
You reject them all for various reasons, but you can not produce a single current historian to challenge any of them.
Nor will you.

Musket, you suggest "count the graves and read the accounts of men in the trenches."

We all know the count, and I have read many accounts starting with Sassoon and Graves.
The historians have researched all the accounts available.

On history, I believe the historians.
You people believe all the historians are deluded liars.

Which is the most rational view?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

Links will do the trick Keith simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:52 AM

And Keith, still fighting while you believe you have won? Why? Explain to me what mileage there is putting the boot in after you believe the opposition has been disarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:49 AM

You are far from unbiased, as can be seen from almost everything you post, the people who read these threads are not stupid.

3 points there. 1. Address the points, not the person. 2. You have not read 'everything I post' and 3. Some people are not, some people are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

The search box on the Mudcat main page allows you to look at what Akenaton said about war going back eleven years or so.

To be fair, we can all change our minds. Especially the bit about "fighting for equality."

Anyway, let's have a game of myth buster. Count the graves and read the accounts of men in the trenches.

Then look at the selective quotes about particular days of the war that Keith and Terribulus expand to conclude that the war was well led.

Demolishing myths.. That's what we do whenever the three of them print myths

😼

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:41 AM

Musket lied about what the historians in his programme had said, completely misrepresenting the message, but no-one minds.

You people ridicule the views of the historians as if you know more!
There is not one who supports you.
Your only reply is that they must all be lying!

That shows how totally closed your minds are.

Either the historians are deluded liars, or you people are.
That is the only dilemma in this.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:32 AM

"The myths promoted by you people have been demolished by Mr T and Keith, end of story."
Where - perhaps you might provide the links Keith won't - no - didn't think so!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

With "friends" like you and the "muskets" guest, who needs enemies?
You are far from unbiased, as can be seen from almost everything you post, the people who read these threads are not stupid.

The myths promoted by you people have been demolished by Mr T and Keith, end of story.

There has been not one satisfactory response to the view that the revisionism of the 30's was false and that the additional information available to historians and scholars over the last few decades validates the actions of General Haig.
Having been allowed to start, the war had to be won and Haig helped to accomplish that victory.

The Germans turned out to be bad losers, but not as bad as you lot!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

"I knew a bloke that would spout forth whenever we were in the pub with all sorts of bollocks"
Tommy Kenny (the "lying veteran", according to this pair of jobbies) who we recorded in 1969, told us of how the officers in charge would occasionally select enthusiastic Tommies to give a pep-talk to the men - attendance was compulsory.
Invariably, the response was for the speaker to be drowned out by the loud singing of the Salvation Army hymn "tell me the old, old story".
The officers retaliated by threatening to put the culprits on a charge, so the men settled for humming it audibly under their breaths so they couldn't be identified.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:54 AM

I wish had remembered earlier.I knew a bloke that would spout forth whenever we were in the pub with all sorts of bollocks. Now, that's fine in itself, we all talk bollocks when we have had a few. Some of it is true, some isn't, but this particular bloke used to make his points by prodding you in the chest and emphatically stating "and that's a fact". You are doing the online equivalent of prodding people in the chest, Keith. This is a cautionary tale. He lost most of his friends.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:21 AM

Can we put the false names bi in context
Keith was the first one I encountered, using it to give himself support when nobody else would (surprisingly!!)
He was reprmanded by the site administrator and claimed he was doing so to expose a "troll" -(ie interfering with the rights of a non-member)
It's not a particularly savoury practice, but give us a break Keith.
If you have posted evidence of what yu claim - link us to it or stop making a fool of yourself - a joke's a joke, but!!!!
Jim Carroll

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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! 😂