"I find it a bit odd that you are ridiculing the idea that someone would be expected to back up their opinions about history with evidence."

With your writing style, twisting of words, warping of thoughts, and ignoring the references already posting, it really isn't worth the trouble to help you understand. It takes a lot of reading in your post to comprehend what you're saying. It's almost as if you're typing all of your thoughts as you formulate your argument. I've seen several of your post start off in one direction and somewhere along the way you convince yourself that you should go the other. You broke a social rule, on a board such as this, you can only use the exact words someone wrote against them, not what you interpet they said, and especially switching words around. That is not fare.

From your post with Keith,

"I have no interest in "winning" a discussion on this website, for it is impossible. This is not a competition, nor are there any ways to "win." But, I am interested in talking about some of these issues with people who know them "better" than I do, and who will return a question or challenge with a well-argued, and well-documented, post. If someone does not put out the effort to make a good "return," I find myself a little disappointed---for nothing has been gained by either "player."" [Craig]

That is not the impression, many people reading this board, and I have.

Want some Raisinets?

___________________________
David Upton