Quote:
Originally Posted by bristol scout
Chock criticises roundly and mentions allied war crimes IN THE SAME BREATH as German war crimes in two World Wars! But he uses a book about the Battle of Britain as ---and I quote exactly (as it is only right that I should---having been accused of more Machiavellianesque -----well, doctoring)--" My main sources for info relating to Dresden"
|
Again a tedious attempt to alter the meaning of things with selective editing and quotation marks, in missing off the surrounding sentences which give it relevance. A crude attempt to make it appear it was the only book I listed and alter the context of why it was written. It really is embarrassing to watch such clumsy efforts, and trust me, having spent several years as a newspaper sub-editor in the past, I've seen far better attempts.
Which brings us to this: I did not accuse you of being Machiavellian, to be Machiavellian requires intelligence and cunning. Don't flatter yourself; there is nothing very cunning about blatantly misquoting, or selectively editing someone in an attempt to change the meaning of what they have written when the preceding full text can be seen by people, especially from someone claiming to be the champion historical accuracy, and there's nothing at all intelligent about dragging it out further and drawing attention to the fact that you have done so.
You can write Chock did this, and Chock did that all you like, and even put quotation marks around it if you like, but anyone who can read and is prepared to look back a few pages on this thread can see that's exactly what you have done. Although God alone knows why they should want to waste the time when we are supposed to be discussing the formation of the Richthofen Circus and matters pertaining to it, rather than leaping on passing comments from people in order to whizz off into your preferred argumentative tangents.
Al