@georgeob1,
How typical of you. My fidelity for sources, whether linked or not, is not new. When the topic is history, if anyone asks, I can cite my sources--title, author, publishing house and date of publication--or, when feeling lazy, I will provide a link. There's a thread from either late 2002 or early 2003 in which I contradicted someone who said that Jeanne d'Arc was convicted and condemned for witchcraft. That's not true, she was condemned for failing to submit to the Church Militant, which is to say, the church on Earth (as opposed to the Church Triumphant, the church in Heaven). The entire episode was rigged, much like most conservative activities, but that's not the point here. Challenged, I cited Clin and Pernoud,
Jeanne d'Arc. I don't recall the publishing house or the date, although that is easily enough found.
Another time, some fool here whom I knew to be obstreperous and vituperative stated that the Secretary of the Navy and the American ambassador in Tokyo knew of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor in January, 1941. That was patently absurd. Only Yasmamoto, his chief of staff, and a couple of others knew of Yamamoto's plan. In January, 1941, Lt. Commander Genda returned from sea duty, and Yamamoto appointed him operational planning officer. Genda then recommended his military patron, then Lt. Commander Fuchida, and Yamamoto promoted Fuchida Commander (he had the seniority), and made him the operational training officer.
No other Japanese officers, including flag officers and members of the Imperial Navy Staff, knew of the planned attack. I cited Gordon Prange,
At Dawn We Slept. Prange was MacArthur's chief of the historical section in Tokyo after the war, and interviewed hundreds of Japanese army and naval officers,
including Genda and Fuchida. Like most conspiracy bullsh*t, it doesn't even make sense. We are to believe that the Secretary of the Navy had intimate knowledge of Japanese naval plans which was unknown to ONI? Oh please . . .
I have a long history of supporting my claims if they are challenged, and in deference to Mr. Latham, I provide them in this thread when the subject is potentially contentious. You are trotting out straw men, because I did not dispute California's financial burden, if the proposal of the state Senate were adopted--
and I had already pointed out that the Speaker of the State Assembly had tabled the proposal indefinitely. It is deception to only tell part of the truth, as much as it is to lie outright.
I learned to cite sources, and how to cite sources, and when it is necessary to cite sources as a history major in university, fifty years ago. I would point out, though, that you suffer from the same defect as Finn. You pontificate, but you don't substantiate. Did you bother to read the
Los Angeles Times articles I cited and linked? Are you alleging that the
Times is some commie rag that can't be trusted?
Go back to sleep O'Brian, that's the only time you're charming company.
