Originally Posted by mklhawley
Or, I just know the game you're playing. Jonathan owned you on Casebook so you changed your online article to make it look like your arguments are valid. You know darn well you did it, so quit lying.
Are you actually back on that?
Firstly, Jonathan didn't "own" me. It's clear for anyone who looks at the debate to see this.
Secondly, I didn't change my online article ("A Bridge Too Far") at all. If you were to actually read that article you will see that it's very tightly argued. It would be almost impossible to change anything without affecting the entire argument.
Thirdly, the entire article was discussed openly with Jonathan on this forum. So how could I have changed anything so that it would not be noticed? I mean, for me to have changed something in response to what Jonathan said about my article would mean he has said something about my article which can no longer be found in it. This is simply not the case!
Fourthly, you've never provided a single example of what you think I've changed in that article. What are you saying has been changed?
Fifthly, Jonathan himself has never claimed, as far as I am aware, that I've changed anything in my article in response to his comments (although, as I've already pointed out, he stated that he
was going to change the next edition of his book in response to my article and give me a credit!).
Sixthly, you originally claimed in this thread that the article had "vanished", which it hadn't. It's your own credibility that has vanished.