[Chock]

Every time you come up with a reply, it invariably has a little tweak to what I wrote, in a crude attempt to adjust the meaning of what I've written, and as much as you would like it to, putting such tweaks in your own quotation marks does not make what you write, equate to what I wrote.

So, I'll repeat it, I wrote that Bungay's book was one of my sources relating to Dresden, not on Dresden. Frankly, making such silly tweaks to my text in an attempt to have your arguments suit something I didn't even write, is laughable.

Next, it is indeed subtitled 'a history on the Battle of Britain', but you'll note that it is not subtitled 'a history of the Battle of Britain', a subtle difference, but an important one with regard to its focus. Furthermore, at no point did I write that the book was about Dresden, as you are attempting to imply I did. I wrote it was about the reasons for WW2 and the decisions behind it and the morality of such decisions, which led to the Battle of Britain. The relevance being that the battle was the first one in WW2 where cities were bombed as a deliberate policy by Churchill (which you'll remember was something you yourself also pointed out in relation to me mentioning Harris), in reprisal for a Luftwaffe bomber which apparently accidentally dumped its bombs over London. That is where the connection is, since it was a policy that escalated, effectively being the thin end of the wedge which culminated in raids such as the one on Dresden.

But to be honest, I don't even care if you understand that. You are clearly not in the slightest bit interested in what I've written, as evidenced by those childish tweaks to what I've written in an attempt to twist the meaning. And as far as insulting your intelligence goes, I think it would be hard to insult it more than you have done yourself with such childishly transparent actions.

Al