AFLD v Armstrong
Comments
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......0
-
.....they've tested him and tested him
...and this is the best they can do.
....is it because other "favourite riders" have already been proven as dopers that attracts all the antii Armstrong content.
I for one have never understood the continuation of the Millar adulation....why no life ban here ?
...he's another arrogant t*sser
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz +10 -
rprodgers wrote:.....they've tested him and tested him
...and this is the best they can do.
?
He must remain with the tester at all times. If he did not, then he violated the rules. Not just the French rules, but the WADA rules. If the guy doing the test said it was ok that's a different story but I somehow doubt an experienced senior tester would do that.
It doesn't matter that he went for a shower, he could've needed some time alone with a Lindsay Lohan pick, gone for a dump or made a phone call. The rules are you remain with the tester.
If it's true they only submitted to the tests when calling the police was mentioned that's a bit worrying, innit?
This comeback was all about being transparent. It appears that means putting out a version of the truth via twitter which must be accepted as gospel. Funny how he never mentioned the not working with Catlin via twitter, eh?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:This comeback was all about being transparent. It appears that means putting out a version of the truth via twitter which must be accepted as gospel. Funny how he never mentioned the not working with Catlin via twitter, eh?
Transparency is the crux of the matter isn't it? When he announced his comeback he was very clear that he'd be open and submit himself to scrutiny. Many doubted his words at the time as there was a view that leopards cannot change their spots. As time goes on it's clear that the promised transparency was a hollow one and the cynical PR machine is back in full swing.
Armstrong might not have anything to hide but his public criticisms of the scrutiny he is being exposed to give those of us who doubt him more reasons to do so.0 -
He also admitted to past mistakes of atagonising "the French" and blacklisting journalists, recognising this was the wrong thing and promising to make amends. Sadly this didn't last long either. A pity because he had a blank canvas to rebuild his image.andyp wrote:Armstrong might not have anything to hide but his public criticisms of the scrutiny he is being exposed to give those of us who doubt him more reasons to do so.
Certainly some will not have allowed him to escape the past but I think a new attitude with Catlin and being open with the media would have allowed him the chance to buy back some credibility amongst some but it's getting too late now.0 -
But for Mr & Mrs 'Don't Know An Inner Tube From a Snake in the Grass' in B*mf*ck, Texasthe xenophobia, the embattled warrior, the 'boo hoo the French are out to get my head on a platter' (what, a John the Baptist complex, too?) all play exceptionally well - he's a bona fide American hero who is under siege from those damned Frenchies who should be grateful we bailed 'em out in WW2. Those are the people who will vote for him, not us world weary cynics on an Internet forum.0
-
Exactly! As I pointed out earlier, Armstrong knows where the biggest market for his 'brand' is and has made pandering to anti-French xenophobia in America (which is largely a reflection of the dominant right-wing mindset which exists there) practically a defining feature of his 'brand'. As that article on him from the Texas Monthly put it: 'Lance is on top of the world; what could possibly motivate him anymore? Well, there's rubbing the Gallic nose into the pavement again, always a trusty pleasure.'micron wrote:But for Mr & Mrs 'Don't Know An Inner Tube From a Snake in the Grass' in B*mf*ck, Texasthe xenophobia, the embattled warrior, the 'boo hoo the French are out to get my head on a platter' (what, a John the Baptist complex, too?) all play exceptionally well - he's a bona fide American hero who is under siege from those damned Frenchies who should be grateful we bailed 'em out in WW2. Those are the people who will vote for him, not us world weary cynics on an Internet forum.
I feel that the overtly political dimension of much of the anti-French xenophobia Armstrong feeds and panders to should not be underestimated. For example, just look how many comments made in relation to Armstrong's 'relationship' with 'the French' mirrors comments made in relation to other areas, such as France's laudable refusal to support America's illegal invasion of Iraq. (Aided and abetted by Bush's tame poodles in charge of Airstrip One of course). For example, see:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q= ... U5OGI5OGQ=
It's also clear that many 'French haters' interpret everything they see relating to Armstrong in a way that reinforces their prejudices. For example, a few German supporters of Ullrich are reported as spitting at Armstrong on Alpe D'Huez and before you know it is 'The French' who are spitting at him. A handful of Orange-clad Basque fans out to support Iban Mayo give Armstrong 'The finger' and once again, they are no longer a handful of Basques but 'The French' (meaning the whole nation I guess!) demonstrating that Pharmstrong 'Has more balls then their whole miserable country!' And so on ad-infinitum. :roll:0 -
Of course, those will be metaphorical 'balls' I presume? :roll:Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
I like the way he's handed the moral high ground to his detractors, on a plate.
Anyhow, just popped in, back to that load of cobbles......"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Watching P-R on Eurosport and they've just had a 'Planet Armstrong' advert - how on earth did he agree to that? It is hilarious - but it makes him look a total prat.0
-
I guess it is easier to be gung-ho about war when you live in a country that, generally speaking, is the one dropping the bombs rather than experiencing the death and destruction that result.micron wrote:he's a bona fide American hero who is under siege from those damned Frenchies who should be grateful we bailed 'em out in WW2.
Of course, the part played by the Americans and even the British in breaking Hitler's war machine was relatively minor compared with that played by the USSR. Just look at the casualty statistics: during WW2 the UK suffered 382,000 military casualties and the US 417,000 casualties, and that includes all those killed in the war with Japan and so on and from ‘non combat’ causes such as car and aircraft crashes, disease, whilst in POW camps and so on.
In comparison the USSR suffered approaching 11 million military casualties. (And this may well be an under-estimate). The war in the East was genuinely 'total war' with the Germans being willing to fight to the last man as they believed, given the way they had treated the inhabitants of eastern Europe, that the fate that they faced when the tide turned against them would be similarly dreadful. As Antony Beevor notes in his book 'Berlin' the war on the western front was often very different, with German forces being so happy to be captured by US and British forces before the Soviets caught up with them that some Americans nicknamed the final part of the war as ‘conquest by camera'!
I also find it amusing when people bang on about the French forces failing under the onslaught of the Germans, seemingly forgetting that the majority of those ‘running away’ at Dunkirk were Brits! It was also the French who stayed behind to protect the Dunkirk evacuation until overwhelmed by the German forces.
I also have a feeling that the massive casualties the French suffered during WW1 must have influenced their attitudes regarding the sanity of war. Even today this 'sacrifice' is still a strong part of the national psyche, with every village having it’s memorial and annual service. Some of these memorials in my part of the world are still very moving, with name after name from the same families in villages that even today are tiny. In comparison the British built most of their memorials in France where thay cannot have the same ongoing impact. (Apart from on those who see them everyday of course). For example, Lutyens' memorial at Thiepval in France, remembering those who died on the Somme and who have no known resting place.
Today of all days it is perhaps worth remembering why the Paris-Roubaix race is said to pass through 'The Hell of the North'.0 -
My husband is a history buff (he designs war board games in his spare time) and would agree with you - and, as you point out, it's always worth remembering just why P-R is really known as the 'Hell of the North'0
-
aurelio wrote:Of course, the part played by the Americans and even the British in breaking Hitler's war machine was relatively minor compared with that played by the USSR. Just look at the casualty statistics: during WW2 the UK suffered 382,000 military casualties and the US 417,000 casualties, and that includes all those killed in the war with Japan and so on and from ‘non combat’ causes such as car and aircraft crashes, disease, whilst in POW camps and so on.
On the casualties front, of course the Soviets suffered massively, but to say that the British and Americans played a minor part isn't accurate - don't forget that WW2 was also an air and naval war, and the air forces and navies of the UK and USA caused enormous damage to German military capability.
With regards to the rest of what you were saying, I believe it was Goering who said that the common man despises was, so the job of the politician is to convince him that the nation is threatened, and furthermore that anyone who questions this threat is a traitor. This idea was familiar to Roman leaders, and it seems that it is still followed today. I remember when the Iraq war started, I was listening to a radio news broadcast, and there was an interview with a woman-in-the-street who informed the nation that "if we don't invade Iraq now, then in 10 years time Saddam will be invading us." She finished this by saying "you mark my words." So it must be true.0 -
A reasonable comment, but from what I have read the land war in Europe was the real place where Hitler's power was broken and the strategic contribution made by the air war has been greatly over-stated, the main victims being German civilians. Again, the naval war was much more about keeping 'Britain's lifelines' open than destroying Germany's military power. Whatever, I was primarily thinking of the common image of the land war in Europe being won by a few Americans and 'plucky 'Brits, which just isn't the case.johnfinch wrote:On the casualties front, of course the Soviets suffered massively, but to say that the British and Americans played a minor part isn't accurate - don't forget that WW2 was also an air and naval war, and the air forces and navies of the UK and USA caused enormous damage to German military capability.
It is also forgotten today that Hitler had some good grounds for believing that the British would fall in line with his dream of the UK and Germany joining forces in order to jointly dominate Europe. Many in the UK and US in the 1930's regarded fascism as being the ideal political model, countering the 'threats' of socialism and trade unionism, (for example, recall the Daily Mail’s ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ headline and the Daily Mirror’s ‘Give the Blackshirts a helping hand’), many in the UK establishment and aristocracy were very pro Hitler and people like Henry Ford were great supporters of Hitler, including financially.
It is also the case that the late entry of the US in the war was partially motivated by the hope that Hitler would crush the USSR, so saving the US the job of having to crush Soviet power after the war ended, or at the least leaving the USSR as an impoverished wasteland, which is pretty much what happened. Some historians have also argued that the US cynically exploited the war in Europe in a way that also ensured that the power of the UK would be greatly diminished in the post-war world to the advantage of the US. As A.J.P. Taylor put it:
‘Soviet Russia did most of the fighting against Germany, sustained nine tenths of the casualties and suffered catastrophic economic losses. The British sustained considerable economic loss and sustained comparatively few casualties. The Americans made great economic gains and had a trifling number of casualties fighting against Germany - their main losses were in the war against Japan... Of the three great men at the top, Roosevelt was the only one who knew what he was doing: he made the United States the greatest power in the world at virtually no cost.’
As ever, the general rule seems to be that the US only ever does what is to the benefit of the US.
P.s. These must be some of the most OT posts on here ever!0 -
Typical this - 12 pages of waffle about Armstrong and the Paris Roubaix thread is barely just over a page.
Seems there are more people are more interested in Lance (pros and cons) than there are in real cycling.0 -
micron wrote:Watching P-R on Eurosport and they've just had a 'Planet Armstrong' advert - how on earth did he agree to that? It is hilarious - but it makes him look a total prat.
I don't think he did. It's just a 5-minute filler programme with clips from news conferences / race footage etc and a voiceover reading his latest Twitter updates.0 -
Eh? There must be at least 4 current threads on PR totalling more than 8 pages and counting!cougie wrote:Typical this - 12 pages of waffle about Armstrong and the Paris Roubaix thread is barely just over a page. Seems there are more people are more interested in Lance (pros and cons) than there are in real cycling.0 -
aurelio wrote:. Whatever, I was primarily thinking of the common image of the land war in Europe being won by a few Americans and 'plucky 'Brits, which just isn't the case.
It is also forgotten today that Hitler had some good grounds for believing that the British would fall in line with his dream of the UK and Germany joining forces in order to jointly dominate Europe.
What, you mean the films gave a misleading impression? Rubbish! Next you'll be telling us that working class and African soldiers also took part in the war.
I think that Hitler's view of joint British-German domination may have been coloured by his own theory of racial hierarchy. Let's not forget that the British fascists never numbered more than 50,000. The Daily Mail had to withdraw support in 1934 (due to fascist tactics, rather than ideology), working class people united to stop fascist marchers in 1936 (Battle of Cable Street), and the BUF was in decline after this event. C'mon, let's be positive - at least we've never had a fascist government - yet!0 -
I would suggest that then, as today, those with an essentially 'fascist' outlook numbered far more than that! Richard Griffith's 'Fellow travellers of the right: British enthusiasts for Nazi Germany 1933-39' covers this area well, if you can find a copy. (My own tatty paperback copy cost me 30 quid!) It is also the case that fascism was very popular in certain fields, especially motoring and aviation. A few examples:johnfinch wrote:Let's not forget that the British fascists never numbered more than 50,000...
C.G Grey, editor of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft and The Aeroplane wrote in The Aeroplane in March 1936 of how under the Nazis Germany was ruled by "sensible middle-class men of real intelligence" who had "freed Germany from Communism". He also praised Hitler's system of concentration camps writing: " I cannot imagine anything better for the morale of a nation than that all the discontented grousers and grumblers and agitators should be carted off to isolated places where they can grouse at one another until they are sick of grousing."
The Motor of June 29 1937 argued that "Germany to-day is the nearest approach to Utopia, with a single political creed, whole-hearted worship of the Fatherland." The Motor went on to note that "cycle tracks (only 2 ft. wide) are to be found alongside the main roads and are used instead of the roadway by cyclists", concluding that "Germany was a motoring paradise".
Motoring publications were particularly impressed by Hitler's attitude to speed. For example, on July 12, 1938 the editor of The Motor railed against the "fatuity" of the questioning of MP. R.W. Sorensen when he asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that: "On a recent run to Cambridge a speed of 109 m.p.h. was reached by a motorcar and in view of the road danger of this speed what action he proposes to prevent such speeds." The editor, apparently with approval, noted that: "If a similar question had been asked in Germany, where they are motor-minded, the questioner by now would have been speeding himself towards a concentration camp."
More support for Germany's Fascist program, especially in relation to it's attitude to motoring, came from the British Admiral Sir Barry Domvile. In his 1936 book By and Large Domvile wrote:
'I am a great believer in first impressions and some of my earliest in Germany made me wonder whether England is really quite so much a land of the free as we are all so fond of bucking about. In many respects poor oppressed Nazi Germany is much better off. To start with, you can drive your car at any speed that your reason considers safe, without the ever-present fear which haunts one over here of attracting the undesired attentions of a disguised policeman, intent on victims. There are no speed limits in Germany. Even in Berlin you can park your car pretty well where you please.'
I'm not quite sure that is the case, especially if, as Orwell put it, we mean 'a slimy Anglicized form of Fascism, with cultured policemen instead of Nazi gorillas and the lion and the unicorn instead of the swastika.'johnfinch wrote:C'mon, let's be positive - at least we've never had a fascist government - yet!
Actually, Orwell was wrong, if only the bit about 'cultured policemen'!0 -
P.s. I think that few could seriously dispute that in the last 10 or 15 years Britain has lurched violently to the right as well as becoming ever more inequitable and hierarchical in nature. In addition an unprecedented amount of authoritarian legislation has been passed, much of it having the unmistakable stench of Fascism about it. For example compare the little discussed Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 1.1-4.html
with the German Enabling act of 1933
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act
Both are essentially bills which are designed to allow the Government pass and repeal laws without recourse to the Parliamentary process.
For some comment on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill see
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 91,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 25,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 07,00.html0 -
aurelio wrote:
In comparison the USSR suffered approaching 11 million military casualties. (And this may well be an under-estimate). The war in the East was genuinely 'total war' with the Germans being willing to fight to the last man as they believed, given the way they had treated the inhabitants of eastern Europe, that the fate that they faced when the tide turned against them would be similarly dreadful. As Antony Beevor notes in his book 'Berlin' the war on the western front was often very different, with German forces being so happy to be captured by US and British forces before the Soviets caught up with them that some Americans nicknamed the final part of the war as ‘conquest by camera'!
I also find it amusing when people bang on about the French forces failing under the onslaught of the Germans, seemingly forgetting that the majority of those ‘running away’ at Dunkirk were Brits! It was also the French who stayed behind to protect the Dunkirk evacuation until overwhelmed by the German forces.
I also have a feeling that the massive casualties the French suffered during WW1 must have influenced their attitudes regarding the sanity of war. Even today this 'sacrifice' is still a strong part of the national psyche, with every village having it’s memorial and annual service. Some of these memorials in my part of the world are still very moving, with name after name from the same families in villages that even today are tiny. In comparison the British built most of their memorials in France where thay cannot have the same ongoing impact. (Apart from on those who see them everyday of course). For example, Lutyens' memorial at Thiepval in France, remembering those who died on the Somme and who have no known resting place.
Today of all days it is perhaps worth remembering why the Paris-Roubaix race is said to pass through 'The Hell of the North'.
Come on, you're better and cleverer than that. You make lucid, well argued points, but really give it to those who disagree with you with knee jerk anti-americanism and calling Britain a "quasi-fascist shit hole" was hardly constructive either.
Russia lost 11 million for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's government didn't care how many men it lost. It simply didn't concern itself with "acceptable losses". Anybody falling back from a position was shot. How many of that 11 million were vitims of the terror, like Solzhenitsyn?
Britain has a war memorial in every town! Surely you must have seen them? They are all marked with a service on Armistice day. My friend plays in a brass band who shuttle between about 5 on the day like a flying picket!
I know this has nothing to do with cycling, but I can't let things like that slide. A life is a life and how many got killed isn't a measure of a "contribution", history is not black and white there aren' "goodies and baddies" (with the exceptions of Stalin and Hitler, they were pretty much all bad)"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
What is your definition of this 'Americanism' that I am supposedly so 'anti'? Do you actually mean 'anti-imperialism, 'anti-the invasion of Iraq', 'anti-neo conservatism', 'anti anti-French xenophobia', or something like that?disgruntledgoat wrote:Come on, you're better and cleverer than that. You make lucid, well argued points, but really give it to those who disagree with you with knee jerk anti-americanism...
'Constructive' or not, I would argue it's a fairly reasonable description of the state of the England today. In fact I would pretty much agree with this man...disgruntledgoat wrote:calling Britain a "quasi-fascist shoot hole" was hardly constructive either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLirqfg36c8
So they fought and died fighting, and by so doing inflicted heavy losses on the Germans as well. The bottom line is that it was the USSR that broke Hitler’s military power.disgruntledgoat wrote:Russia lost 11 million for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's government didn't care how many men it lost. It simply didn't concern itself with "acceptable losses". Anybody falling back from a position was shot.
As far as I know that figure relates directly to casualties sustained during the war itself, not those who died in subsequent 'purges'. (And of course, much of Stalin's motivation for those purges was the discovery that very large numbers of 'white' Russians had joined forces with the Germans during the war).disgruntledgoat wrote:How many of that 11 million were victims of the terror, like Solzhenitsyn?
I have seen some memorials in cemeteries, and I know that most towns have plaques or crosses somewhere, but I certainly haven't seen the sort of high-profile memorials that exist all over France. (To be fair, perhaps the ones I have seen in France have had a greater impact on me as many of them involve very detailed bronze statues and so on, rather than just being a simple cross or plaque). That said is it not the case that Britain had a policy of building most of it's high-profile WW1 memorials in France? Is there anything like the Thiepval monument in Britain?disgruntledgoat wrote:Britain has a war memorial in every town! Surely you must have seen them?
Well, that's the version history has given us, and as they say history is written by the winners. Not that I am defending Hitler, but I do think his image as being some sort of madman is ridiculous, and as they say 'war crimes' are simply those outrages that 'they' committed and 'we' didn't.disgruntledgoat wrote:history is not black and white there aren' "goodies and baddies" (with the exceptions of Stalin and Hitler, they were pretty much all bad)0 -
Sod the cycling, I'd love to hear more about France's "laudable" opposition to the war in Iraq. Was it even more laudilbe than their nuclear reactor-building venture there?
I guess the bias works both ways:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 942086.stm
"There is a story about a conversation between General de Gaulle, who, as president of the French Republic, telephoned his American counterpart Lyndon B Johnson, to inform him that France had decided to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty alliance.
Since its foundation nearly two decades earlier, Nato had had its headquarters in France. Now Nato would have to move.
Furthermore, de Gaulle added, it was his intention that all American service personnel should be removed from French soil.
"Does that include," Johnson is said to have replied, "those buried in it?"
Ouch.
Anti-Americanism
But go to the cemeteries of Normandy and you see what an Anglo-Saxon business the D-Day landings - and the liberation of France - really were.
The historian Andrew Roberts has calculated that of the 4,572 allied servicemen who died on that day on which, in retrospect, so much of human history seems now to have pivoted - only 19 were French. That is 0.4%.
Of the rest, 37 were Norwegians, and one was Belgian. The rest were from the English speaking world - two New Zealanders, 13 Australians, 359 Canadians, 1,641 Britons and, most decisively of all, 2,500 Americans.
After the disastrous Suez crisis in 1956, it fell to Harold Macmillan as UK prime minister to move Britain from the Age of Empire to the Age of Europe.
But his attempts to take the United Kingdom into what was then called the Common Market fell foul of General de Gaulle's famous vetoes.
Twice Monsieur Non listened politely to Britain's plea, and twice he slammed the door.
De Gaulle saw in British membership the Trojan Horse of American imperialism in Europe.
After Algeria won its independence from France in the early 1960s, de Gaulle was fond of saying that he had not granted freedom to one country only to sit by and watch France lose its independence to the Americans.
Macmillan, in old age, spoke ruefully of France's almost psychotic relationship with its Anglo-Saxon allies.
France, he said, had made peace with Germany, had forgiven Germany for the brutality of invasion and the humiliation of four years of occupation, but it could never - never - forgive the British and Americans for the liberation.
French anti-Americanism has a long pedigree. The 18th Century philosophers of the European Enlightenment believed the New World to be self evidently inferior.
They spoke - and wrote, prolifically - of the degeneration of plant and animal life in America.
They believed America had emerged from the ocean millennia after the old continents; and that accounted for the cultural inferiority of civilisations that tried to plant themselves there.
Self-liberation
I was living in Paris when France celebrated the 60th anniversary of its liberation. I went to the beaches of Normandy on the 60th anniversary of D-Day and watched veterans assembling one last time, old men, heads held high, marching past blown up photographs of themselves as young liberators.
France's ambivalence - the same neurosis that Harold MacMillan spoke of - was evident.
Paris launched a series of events to mark the 60th anniversary of its own liberation in August 2004.
The city's mayor had given the celebrations the title Paris Se Libere! - Paris Liberates Herself!
One of the newspapers published a 48-page commemorative issue. There was no mention of the allies until page 18.
Building a myth
An English friend of mine, in town that weekend, had remarked how empty Paris felt in August, the month the city empties out as its residents head for their annual sojourn in the countryside.
"I see," he said "that Paris was liberated in August. I guess the Parisians didn't find out about it till September, when they came back."
Again - ouch. The caustic Anglo-Saxon wit stings.
It stings because the tale that France told itself after the war was built around a lie. Paris se libere.
The words were first spoken by de Gaulle himself at the Hotel de Ville on the evening of 25 August 1944.
Paris had been liberated by her own people, he declared, "with the help of the armies of France, with the help and support of the whole of France, that is to say of fighting France, the true France, the eternal France."
France knew, in its heart, even in 1944, that that was not true. It took until the 1980s for a generation of historians properly to re-examine the darkest chapter of France's 20th Century history.
When I was living in Paris, it struck me that Sarkozy - not yet president - had the potential to be France's first post-Gaullist leader.
His enemies called him "Sarkozy the American" in the hope that this would make him unelectable. It did not work.
And now he has taken his country back into the Atlanticist fold.
It seems to me another step in a long journey, in which France - in its mature, disputatious, entrenched democracy - is growing reconciled to the history that is now challenging the myths.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Yes, some bias (including on the part of the writer...), and some fair comment as well, especially De Gaulle's view that the UK could never really integrate into Europe and instead would just be a stalking horse for the US- inspired policies. Just look how even today so many Brits are hostile to the whole concept of the EU and instead would like to develop Britain’s role as 'Airstrip One', sorry the 'special relationship' with the US. (You know, the one where the UK acts as the US's lapdog - as in Iraq - only to be told 'there is no quid-pro-quo' when seeking US support on an issue such as climate change). :roll:DaveyL wrote:0 -
:roll:Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Everybody loves an amateur historian eh? 8)
I'm in half a mind to throw in my two cents on amateur/popular history that I've been studying in my final term history degree, but given the various responses last time, I've decided people don't like being told they're wrong!
8)
Armstrong's a clever man though, however unappealing he is! He can turn even a slightly embarrasing incident such as this into a real whirlwind, bringing everyone into the fray.
I thought his "I probably won't make the tour" comment particularly clever. It's win win with that guy.
Shame I can't stand him!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
No, please add to the 'debate'. It would be interesting to see where the likes of Taylor, Griffiths and Beevor have misled me.teagar wrote:I'm in half a mind to throw in my two cents on amateur/popular history that I've been studying in my final term history degree, but given the various responses last time, I've decided people don't like being told they're wrong! 0 -
I won't. Seriously. It got nasty last time!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0
-
OK, PM me if you like!teagar wrote:I won't. Seriously. It got nasty last time!0 -
teagar wrote:
I'm in half a mind to throw in my two cents on amateur/popular history that I've been studying in my final term history degree, but given the various responses last time, I've decided people don't like being told they're wrong!
8)
Well if I've made any factual mistakes in this thread, I'd be happy for you to correct them - I'd prefer to say something stupid once than twice!
Be warned though, my stepdad is a history teacher, and we've got a bookshelf with over two hundred books covering this period, so I'll be checking all of this up :twisted: !0
