You better accept it, ... and quit this personal series of attacks, ... because you are only going to receive back what you are trying to deliver, ... with the related interests.
Lets get one thing straight. I don't like personal attacks.I think that it weakens any counter argument. If you have to resort to a ad hominem then you've probably lost the argument or there is a serious failing in a line of debate.
That's life, ... and we can live with it and accept this shameful " deniers " approach despite having at hand official documents demonstrating what we are simply stating since years.
Obviously they are trying in any way to move away from the subject in discussion and accuse us personally, ... with sarcasm and personal offenses trying in this way to accuse of unreliability the writers, ... their last unfair ( and against the forum rules ) way to counter what cannot be countered or hidden anymore.
The shame of those events is finally out in full details, ... no one will " cover up " anything anymore in the future.
This is pretty strong stuff. If the "silver bullet" exists the now is the time to deploy it. If you are going to call people timid or cowards then the onus is on the proposer to provide the evidence.So far it is shakey and was based on intuition . If this is the case then you have started from a position where you already think you know the result. The problem with this is you already know the result and nobody will persuade otherwise. Now my problem with this is that you might as well close the forum. If you cannot point out counter argument then its just an echo chamber between two people. You have had a respected historian who has told you that its impossible to definitively work out the tracks of ships involved in the Denmark Strait. You have quoted a single source 20 years after the event as definitive. Nobody else has produced evidence or the "for" argument because it flies in the face of convention and common sense. The rottweiler has forcibly stated various parts of the NDA but comes out with a quote of
we are NOT interested at all in details about British legislation, powers, CM / BofI procedures,Judges and Advocates etc. but ONLY to the disciplinary rules in force in 1941,
Well,the whole point is that you have to have an understanding of legal process to understand the whys, whats ,for.
Rather than go for the poster go for the post. Example...
because you are only going to receive back what you are trying to deliver, ... with the related interests
Try.......
"The reason I disagree is because of X,W,Z.....
Any ad hominem's just reinforce how shakey the foundations for your POV are. And again I don't agree with the personal attacks from either side. I do disagree with the use of the word "coward". If somebody uses such a term they better be 100% sure. When the likes of Bill Jurens and Alan Raven disagree surely tis time to think that you maybe barking up the wrong tree.....
Unless the "silver bullet" is a golden shot?
In which case disclose the evidence and put us all to shame. At the moment the silver bullet looks more like pewter. Has its place in the world but is not what was advertised. Merely shouting down the naysayers does not make a position fact.