You and butchersapron are as one in this regard. You plot up on these threads and take pot shots without really risking a positive contribution. Inevitably any comment made in a short post on a complex topic is going to be riven with simplifications, oversights and errors. The interesting thing is to discuss and enlighten.
Yes. but it is not inevitable that the errors need be egregious
What the duck has this to do with me? I've not once posted about this ridiculous little cul de sac. Why on earth would I bother with this infantile view of history? Long ago decided it's not worth my time.
But in the first rank for posting nonsense about the romanovs. who has said Russia under the romanovs was just and noble etc?
You did. You are obsessed with them and you love them. Your favourite historical reference is Disney's Anastasia.
But what do you think
The blackmail?
None at all.
two sheds does it better than you
Come back rebel warrior all is forgiven
But you do like a lie
You want me to advance an opinion? And yet I have only 10 minutes or so while I eat breakfast. And I want to check a few other threads, and Facebook. So any comment I make is going to be brief, general, and have ample room for a tedious sniper to take numerous pot shots.
Amazing. At least that's your method laid bare. If you post on urban you're justified in bringing me into any old shit.
Yes I make up lies about the Russian revolution. It's a hobby of mine.
I'm in love with you butchersapron. And in my unrequited frustration I lash out. I'm sorry. I can change.
You mean it would be as riddled with errors as your previous posts on this thread
Another lie
It's an inevitable side effect of advancing opinions and theories - they are often wrong. Whereas the inevitable side effect of never offering a theory or opinion while picking apart others, is that people will assume you are on the autistic spectrum.
Fuck your opinions and theories, i'm thinking of your sketch of the historiography of the Russian revolution, and the lies you've told about me
I remember asking you once before to post a link to *any* thread where you have offered a theory, opinion or speculation. Essentially any time you have done the opposite of sniping and policing other's contributions. I'll ask again - please post a link.
Yeah I'm a terrible liar. I make up these cruel lies about the Russian revolution.
Astonishing. Utterly bizarre.
It may seem bizarre to you. But most people will understand.
Not so much cruel lies as utterly stupid lies like your nonsense that the orthodox view counterpoints the nice romanovs against the nasty bolsheviks.
Yes, most people will agree that i have never said anything or put a point of view across on here.
You tell us about it.
Not saying you're wrong. You're very clearly not wrong - Russia started industrialising in the late 19th C. But to what extent does Idaho's error in not acknowledging this make his subsequent reasoning wrong? So the question here is 'how had industrialisation in Russia progressed by 1917, and what challenges did it still face when the dust settled after the civil war'? How did Stalin's policies advance industrialisation, and what was the base he was working from? How did that base compare to the bases in other countries, and how did his progress compare?
If you're going to nitpick, at least enter a positive contribution.
